Transformerless SM58

[Folkcafe]

I find this a hive mind mentality than anything. Especially when I let an artist taste test different mics on stage and most notice how much of a POS they truly are, so most end up with something not a SM58 by their choice.

"Hive Mind" is an interesting description. More so "POS" for a microphone that was introduced in 1966 and that has probably outsold any similar mic by huge ratios. So, I get that you don't like it. So not trying to convince you otherwise, just pointing out a common selection bias.

As a percentage of the population, those that can hear and discern qualitive differences in audio is a fairly small number. I witnessed this some years back first hand. One of my early jobs was working for a music store that sold car and home audio. Everything from affordable to pretty expensive brands like Luxman. I learned a lot about how few people could tell the difference between a speaker costing $100 to one well over $1000. I did a lot of blind A/B testing. General public is not impressive in this regard.

Another thing I learned also makes me understand a long trend in music production. We sold a lot of different speakers including Japanese brands like Pioneer and Kenwood. When A/B tested against higher end brands, these would often get picked by most customers and it kind of made me scratch my head a bit. What these brands did was make these speakers brighter. In a A/B comparison, brighter tends to win out in such a short audition test.

We all have our biases and yours tends to lean towards brighter. The microphones you list as superior are all brighter than the 58. The Telefunken is a really bright mic. From 1966 and the introduction of the 58 to today, modern music has certainly moved to loud and bright. I suppose if what you produce is modern music (don't like to presume based on username but drtechno kind of implies) you are going to lean in a modern direction. Is this part of your bias? Are you simply like the masses and just pick brighter?

 

[drtechno]

Is this part of your bias? Are you simply like the masses and just pick brighter

The 58 just has too much of the wrong highs and not enough of the right ones. 8K I notice is really problematic with them and feedback.
The wireless ones seem not prone to this, but they could be doing some sort of processing and gain structure set points that wouldn't exist with a plain 58.

The 57 is a flat dynamic mic, and I like different mics on a guitar amp because its not the same boring sound. But speaker choices are more important as greenbacks don't have a good tone to record with regardless of cabinet. But my favorite combo to record guitar is a ribbon mic and a modified SM7.

 

[drtechno]

Is this part of your bias? Are you simply like the masses and just pick brighter?

no, I find that this mic is another 'bad audio purchase' like a lot of midstream things shoved into musician faces and priced higher than it should be. But let us not forget the rack gear either like the 1176 or the la2a that cost way more than they are actually worth. Because there is nothing special about them and they are not consistent from unit to unit either.

 

[rob aylestone]

Funny you mentioned radios. The official advice is never mix makes for a few sensible reasons, but for many years my favourite combination was Sennheisers with the 845 capsule running to Trantec (the British brand who used to make the early Shure systems with 58 heads). RF wise they were a very good and functional match, but the compander curves were off, but the result was a really nice condenser ish sound on the usual quite dull Sennheiser dynamic. Nobody would ever have thought it was compressed, because it was the opposite, just nice and crisp. Discovered by happy accident and repeated on purpose.

 

[Folkcafe]

The 58 just has too much of the wrong highs and not enough of the right ones. 8K I notice is really problematic with them and feedback.
The wireless ones seem not prone to this, but they could be doing some sort of processing and gain structure set points that wouldn't exist with a plain 58.

The 57 is a flat dynamic mic, and I like different mics on a guitar amp because its not the same boring sound. But speaker choices are more important as greenbacks don't have a good tone to record with regardless of cabinet. But my favorite combo to record guitar is a ribbon mic and a modified SM7.

This is a far more rational argument vs POS. It just seemed like you were telling all the people who liked chocolate that it is terrible and that any other flavor is preferable. This is the subjective part to some extent. The other thing I learned when selling HiFi is that people have all sorts of different tastes and for many who record and mix are not any different. It comes down somewhat to physiology of hearing and experiences that influence taste.

That said, I've not ever used a SM58 in the studio but have countless times on stage. In live sound, I worked exclusively with promoters where most gigs involved signed artists. Every contract came with a rider the spelled out the technical details. Think the famous green M&M story. If the artist wasn't otherwise traveling with their own mic, if the rider spelled out any, it was an SM58. Simply, it's a microphone, not one mic is perfect for everyone but there is always a mic that is perfect for the individual. Both the 58 & 57 are old and dated. Perhaps even perhaps past their time. They still deserve a bit of respect for the longevity and place in history.

Thanks for having a civil conversation about something audio related. I've come to really appreciate your perspective. Doesn't seem to matter if I agree or not.

 

[drtechno]

Thanks for having a civil conversation about something audio related. I've come to really appreciate your perspective. Doesn't seem to matter if I agree or not.

Thanks. Your opinion is your own just like mine. Which are valid. Btw, I produce many different formats of music. Your highs analogy makes me think of the the Fletcher Munson curves you have to balance the mix to compliment in a recording.

 

[rob aylestone]

I've got to do some prepping for stuff going out and for a week or two I'll have more mics here than usual. I think if time allows, I'll take one of all the handhelds and record the same thing on each one - voice at a foot away and the same lips on basket. Then seeing if we can identify the tonal changes? Blind test. If things work timetable wise, I'm expecting Sennheiser 835, 845, 855, 865 and Shure 48, 58, Beta58 and 86? I think I know how the sound changes between them, but there could be surprises. Would it be better to do the Shures then the Sennheisers, or mix them up? I think maybe the 835 and the SM58 I should be able to pick out - the condensers should be brighter, so that will be a clue?

Useful or just a curiosity?

 

[ecc83]

I've got to do some prepping for stuff going out and for a week or two I'll have more mics here than usual. I think if time allows, I'll take one of all the handhelds and record the same thing on each one - voice at a foot away and the same lips on basket. Then seeing if we can identify the tonal changes? Blind test. If things work timetable wise, I'm expecting Sennheiser 835, 845, 855, 865 and Shure 48, 58, Beta58 and 86? I think I know how the sound changes between them, but there could be surprises. Would it be better to do the Shures then the Sennheisers, or mix them up? I think maybe the 835 and the SM58 I should be able to pick out - the condensers should be brighter, so that will be a clue?

Useful or just a curiosity?

Number each mic and then draw numbers out of a hat for the sequence? And I know time is a bugger Rob maybe a gauze pop shield at a fixed distance and lips on that?

A decade ago sound on sound did something similar with pre amps. The mics were a constant and the sound source a MIDI driven acoustic piano so exactly the same music for each test. The results were published and readers invited to rate/identify (from a list) the pre amp in each case. The results were ah, Interesting! IIRC nobody did better than chance.

Dave.

 

[drtechno]

I've got to do some prepping for stuff going out and for a week or two I'll have more mics here than usual. I think if time allows, I'll take one of all the handhelds and record the same thing on each one - voice at a foot away and the same lips on basket. Then seeing if we can identify the tonal changes? Blind test. If things work timetable wise, I'm expecting Sennheiser 835, 845, 855, 865 and Shure 48, 58, Beta58 and 86? I think I know how the sound changes between them, but there could be surprises. Would it be better to do the Shures then the Sennheisers, or mix them up? I think maybe the 835 and the SM58 I should be able to pick out - the condensers should be brighter, so that will be a clue?

Useful or just a curiosity?

I would mix it up. But the mic test no one has done yet is across mic preamps in interfaces. Because the noise floor and tone is going to change going from one to another besides the mic. But I also want to point out, no forum has listed the mic preamp type for each interface either. I noticed one listing converter chips, but that is only 1/3 of the picture.

 

[rob aylestone]

The preamp side takes it into another universe - we'd have to consider pre-amps designed to be truthful amd transparent and those that deliberately colour the sound and probably would be better described as processors? If we limited it to just a handful of preamps. 8 mics with 4 preamps bring the number of samples to be listened to up to a point where memory fails. I'm not sure if the input impedance of the preamp has ever been considered in a test. Physics says that the input impedance of the preamp and the output impedance of the mic makes a difference, but in practice, I'm not certain I've ever tracked down obvious tonal shifts to the preamp - or at least to a functional one.

I down own (or want to own) the tone changing preamps, just not my thing, but I do have a number available, of different types and prices - but maybe I could pick one of the dynamics and one of the condensers and try those on the different preamps. I've always picked preamps that were to my ears transparent, so I'd use any of mine to record, with no thoughts to tonal shifts?

 

[Folkcafe]

The preamp side takes it into another universe - we'd have to consider pre-amps designed to be truthful amd transparent and those that deliberately colour the sound and probably would be better described as processors? If we limited it to just a handful of preamps. 8 mics with 4 preamps bring the number of samples to be listened to up to a point where memory fails. I'm not sure if the input impedance of the preamp has ever been considered in a test. Physics says that the input impedance of the preamp and the output impedance of the mic makes a difference, but in practice, I'm not certain I've ever tracked down obvious tonal shifts to the preamp - or at least to a functional one.

I down own (or want to own) the tone changing preamps, just not my thing, but I do have a number available, of different types and prices - but maybe I could pick one of the dynamics and one of the condensers and try those on the different preamps. I've always picked preamps that were to my ears transparent, so I'd use any of mine to record, with no thoughts to tonal shifts?

In some of my previous posts I enclosed a couple of interface comparisons that showed the Presonus AudioBox as having a super high noise floor. It was bad to the point where some suspected the unit must have been faulty. To your point about input impedance, the Presonus was the lowest of the bunch tested at just over 650 ohms. The graph I enclosed showed the low end affected the most due to what I suspect is loading on the preamp. So yes, impedance is a consideration. 3k being ideal but even half of that would be preferred over too low for reference testing.

 

[rob aylestone]

I looked at three of the things I have.
Presonus FP10 Input impedance 1.6K Ohms
Tascam 1641 Input impedance 2.2K Ohms
Midas M32 Input Impedance 10K Ohms

That's a big range isn't it? Looking at that, the typical dynamic should be a better match to the Midas, in load terms - with a lower impedance having a damping effect. I wonder what the practical difference in sound will be. Most of the mics are back, just missing a Sennheiser dynamic model at the moment. Perhaps I should ignore Tascam, I know it's probably the weakest on paper, so if I line up 4 mics next to each other at two distances, and blob out the mics so we cannot see the differences and switch between them with an on-screen number, I could do this twice on the lowest impedance preamp (the Presonus) then repeat it with the Midas, which at over 10K is a very light load and see if the sound switches depending on preamp? If I do it at say 1ft/30cm, then at almost lip on basket - if I find a spacer to set distance, then remove it? That would be 8 versions on each preamp, then another 8 on the alternate preamp.

Is this going to prove anything, or will we just end up with random personal preferences? 40% of people like mic 1 on preamp 2? I'm thinking the differences will be very small, as in nobody likes X, so it's out, and everybody things Z is 'OK'. Maybe I'll find one preamp just makes one mic sound horrible, and the others are so so?

Looking at other ideas to help people, does anyone want to hear grand piano as a source on any particular mic(s) at particular positions? Anything contraversial. I'm thinking like when people ask about can you put mics inside and close the lid, or put them underneath because the thing is being video recorded and open lid and cables/stands are out? Would that be of any use?

 

[ecc83]

This might help, or not Rob! When auditioning monitors one of the most revealing tests is that of the human voice, notably is the listener 'fooled' into thinking they are hearing a real person.

Problem: how do you make a perfectly faithful recording as a test piece? A measurement mic from the NPL?

So, it would seem that you need a microphone to act as a 'control' which is an agreed standard and THE best approximation to the live voice. The comments on all the dynamics have so far pointed to how they CHANGED the sound to some degree or other and quite obviously anything less than absolute fidelity is subjective.

Otherwise, have fun!

Dave.

 

[rob aylestone]

I'm wondering if it's worth doing? it would have to be subjective - although I suppose I could record all 8 mics at once if I could fit them into the space close together. I couldn't do a really close perspective that way, but the 1ft away one would be possible but that then misses the point? Not sure if it's doomed?

 

[ecc83]

I'm wondering if it's worth doing? it would have to be subjective - although I suppose I could record all 8 mics at once if I could fit them into the space close together. I couldn't do a really close perspective that way, but the 1ft away one would be possible but that then misses the point? Not sure if it's doomed?

Probably not mate. That pre amp "shoot out" came about partly I think because there were so many ding-dongs on their forum and others about whether expensive pre amps are really worth the money?

The range of prices was I think about 10 to 1 and as I said, nobody picked out the expensive ones with anything better than a lucky guess! The organizers of the test were keen to point out that at no time was any preamp run close to its headroom limit. They were not therefore testing for pre amp "attitude" or " mojo".

Dave.

 

[rob aylestone]

I think I will just pick one preamp, and just leave it to the mics then. Ta!

 

[CoolCat]

this leading into preamp impedance test is interesting in a confusing way..... reading a couple articles the highest impedance is recommended it seems but then the most infamous sought and copied is 1073 which is 1.2k and 300ohm....and the ISA110 1.3~1.5k the other most famous preamp, neither being 10k ohm or even 3k ohm.

JZ mics in short says

• High Load Impedances (the impedance on your preamp) will give you more overall level
• Higher impedances also tend to make the low-end and low-midrange content of the mic much flatter, as well as have no dampening effect on the higher frequencies

• Low Load Impedances (again, relating to the input of the preamp) will result in a lower output signal
• Low Load Impedances also add more emphasis on the low end and lower midrange frequencies, as well as picking up the resonances lower down the spectrum much more.
• You'll sometimes find that the upper frequencies are slightly more diminished and the mic will lack that upper detail

The ISA One has 4 settings:

• Low - 600 Ohm
• ISA 110 (we referred to this as Mid for the video) - 1400 Ohm
• High - 2400 Ohm
• Very High - 6800 Ohm.

So which preamp will it be? Tascam mentioned seems to be in the center impedance, but the Midas might be better for a test?

 

[CoolCat]

Probably not mate. That pre amp "shoot out" came about partly I think because there were so many ding-dongs on their forum and others about whether expensive pre amps are really worth the money?

The range of prices was I think about 10 to 1 and as I said, nobody picked out the expensive ones with anything better than a lucky guess! The organizers of the test were keen to point out that at no time was any preamp run close to its headroom limit. They were not therefore testing for pre amp "attitude" or " mojo".

Dave.

Im always watching youtubes and the popular "U87 compared to everything" is a mountain of YouTube's....

one ding dong was singing thru a vocoder for his tests of microphones, lol...

 

[drtechno]

I looked at three of the things I have.
Presonus FP10 Input impedance 1.6K Ohms
Tascam 1641 Input impedance 2.2K Ohms
Midas M32 Input Impedance 10K Ohms

That's a big range isn't it? Looking at that, the typical dynamic should be a better match to the Midas, in load terms - with a lower impedance having a damping effect. I wonder what the practical difference in sound will be. Most of the mics are back, just missing a Sennheiser dynamic model at the moment. Perhaps I should ignore Tascam, I know it's probably the weakest on paper, so if I line up 4 mics next to each other at two distances, and blob out the mics so we cannot see the differences and switch between them with an on-screen number, I could do this twice on the lowest impedance preamp (the Presonus) then repeat it with the Midas, which at over 10K is a very light load and see if the sound switches depending on preamp? If I do it at say 1ft/30cm, then at almost lip on basket - if I find a spacer to set distance, then remove it? That would be 8 versions on each preamp, then another 8 on the alternate preamp.

Is this going to prove anything, or will we just end up with random personal preferences? 40% of people like mic 1 on preamp 2? I'm thinking the differences will be very small, as in nobody likes X, so it's out, and everybody things Z is 'OK'. Maybe I'll find one preamp just makes one mic sound horrible, and the others are so so?

Looking at other ideas to help people, does anyone want to hear grand piano as a source on any particular mic(s) at particular positions? Anything contraversial. I'm thinking like when people ask about can you put mics inside and close the lid, or put them underneath because the thing is being video recorded and open lid and cables/stands are out? Would that be of any use?

I find it interesting you chose mic preamps that have front ends of analog consoles. That is why I think someone should make a list so people can see what mic preamp they really have.
It will be impossible to find schematics for some of them. Especially the presonus. But that mic preamp is the same type that is in the tascam. Just made with different parts.
The resulting input impedance is more of a product of the coupling stage before it than the amp itself. The only times they come into play is if the mic exhibits insertion loss from impedance mismatch which loses gain potential in the circuit and this loss is proportional to the added noise floor on the input device. Frequency response come into play with the coupling circuit and any impedance mismatch. If the mic is an active device, like a condenser, a mismatch is a result of it being loaded improperly causing excessive noise.

I have the schematics for the Midas and the tascam but presonus is one of several of them that don't publish theirs. But looking at pictures it looks like the circuit that is in the tascam. The tascam preamp is the same one I bypass in the Behringer ADAT that I let the mod leak out there years ago on it. It isn't a bad design, however the parts choices and they way they layout the circuit is going to be how well they work.

 

[rob aylestone]

If I do the mic comparisons, do you have a suggestion as to which of these available to me I should use - I've also got a behringer 1820 and somewhere an old Lexicon Omega, if either of those jump out (good or bad) plus a pair of Behringers = x32 and x32 rack sitting in the store. I know they claim to be the same design as the midas preamps?