And lots of mics are equally durable these days.
I did NOT find that trumpet dull and lifeless.
Nor do I. I believe he's naysaying for the sake of naysaying, not being objective. No way to prove it at this point but I'm sure that if he'd heard it outside of the context of this particular discussion he would say the sound is good. And it is. Particularly given than it's mono YouTube sound at the lowest possible resolution.
Having said that ...... I still feel that there are LOTS of mics better than a 58/57.
There are certainly mics that behave differently sonically. The original comment I focused on is the statement about them being "way overrated". I felt it was an overly broad statement that was giving too much weight to what the ignorant have to say. I doubt people who are competent at doing sound/recording are going to ascribe non-existent characteristics to them. If competently integrated into the signal chain they can sound great, they're tough, they reject off-axis sound well - all desirable characteristics in a live performance mic. You can grab it and sing into it, snap it back onto the stand and blow up a storm into it and it will handle both well. In my book, it all adds up to it being a good mic. Someone who knows about recording knows that they're not going to sound like a U-87 on vocals or on anything else, nor would you expect it to - utterly dissimilar mics from a physics/construction standpoint. And a U-87 would be a completely inappropriate mic to use the way they're using it in the circumstances they're using it in the video I referenced.
You say there are other mics that sound "better". In a live situation like this on close-mic'd horns, I don't think you'd get "better" sound out of any dynamic and a mic you'd choose in a studio setting or to record a solo trumpet in a cathedral or whatever wouldn't be the right tool for the job. A handheld condenser might be inherently brighter but by the time you EQ it to sound right, I don't think there'd be much difference. You don't want a mic that's going to have more sensitivity to ambient sounds, that's the opposite of what you want here. I believe in this situation any mics that fit the appropriate EQ profile - not too bright, not too boomy and can handle the SPF are going to be basically indistinguishable - especially to people out on the floor.
Mark Pender and "LaBamba" Rosenberg are high profile players, seems likely they're going to be working with pros - IMO whoever did the sound knew what they were doing and got good results. They chose SM-58's, as do many others. There are other mics that could have been used - they got fine results with the 58's. This is often the case. There's a lot of redundancy on the market - and a lot of people paying big bucks for mics when there are others that sound just as good for a lot less money.
Not sure why people take someone liking or not liking a mic personally.
Not sure if you're referring to me, I don't have a financial or emotional investment in Shure products. If I thought they were junk, I'd say I think they're junk. I was debating the merits of a particular statement.
My impression from your comment above is that you were satisfied with the results of at least one example of their being used.
...and i don't have to and the fact that I don't like 'em doesn't mean I'm stupid or unaware of their iconic status....I'm free to like or not like what I wish and I have enough brains to have solid reasons why.That doesn't mean anyone else has to agree with me but that crap about "well you must not know what you're talking about since they're an industry standard" is irritating.
Industry Standard is marketing jargon. I believe Bobbsy is the one who used the term - you never heard it from me. However, since they're so ubiquitous, it doesn't seem completely unreasonable to say that if a particular mic doesn't perform as well as a 58, why would you use it?
To say you disagree and explain why is what this place is all about and is a perfectly reasonable point of view.
But to imply that any of us that don't like 'em must not know what we're talking about is not.
What I'm saying is that I believe it's more rebellion against a "Big name" for being a big name - which I think is revealed in your "iconic status" phraseology - to me it seems to smuggle in a sentiment like - "Oh everyone thinks 58's are so great because Shure has pulled the wool over everyone's eyes..."
I just don't think that's the case. They're a good mic. They're not the only mic.
This guy is convinced that a particular mic - an Audix OM2 has it all over the SM58. Do you think the evidence bears this out?
Audix OM2 And Shure SM58: Shootout! - YouTube
