I'm looking for a good starter vocal mic for under $300 USD - is it possible?

[CoolCat]

WA47tube is $900.... the V67G HE $100....dry, IC clean preamp....or any preamp I have.....if we add eq, and I almost always do ITB EQ and comp on all mics, the difference on most my mics sound similar to my ears... Im not trying to knock any product. But add eq to match it can work fine.

not saying the workmanship and the quality is the same, its not, but the sound , imo, was very close enough.
also this is on one vocal, up close, no room etc...etc... to be clear.
not doing distant violins and all the overhead stuff comparisons. ...in different rooms etc. different applications. my opinion is just one data point.

V67G HE I have was a surprise but when you cost $100 the expectations are positive and when I pay $$$$ I expect magic dust.

 

[Mickster]

What $900 microphone are you talking about? While the V67G is a decent microphone - it's not without it's faults. You have to EQ it to get it to an acceptable sound,

Yeah...every mic has it's pros and cons in terms of frequency response accuracy....period. And so....most need some EQ depending on what you're recording. As for an "acceptable" sound.....that's quite subjective of course.....but if EQ can get you where you want to go....that's fine. and....if you can get there for less $$$....that's fine too.

Mick

 

[Papanate]

Yeah...every mic has it's pros and cons in terms of frequency response accuracy....period. And so....most need some EQ depending on what you're recording. As for an "acceptable" sound.....that's quite subjective of course.....but if EQ can get you where you want to go....that's fine. and....if you can get there for less $$$....that's fine too.

Mick

I don't think EQ Is the way to get there. And I don't think it's subjective on how a mic sounds.

 

[TalismanRich]

I don't think EQ Is the way to get there. And I don't think it's subjective on how a mic sounds.

I think it's VERY subjective how a mic sounds. Otherwise there would objectively be one mic that would be right. You might pick a mic that you like for my guitar because YOU like the sound. I might hate it. That's the very definition of subjective.

Instead you have a million people using 100 different mics to record the instruments and getting very acceptable results. 50-60 years ago, there was a limited number of decent mics out there, so choices were pretty limited, maybe 30 or so good mics. Today, there are probably over 250 different condenser mics from 30 or more different companies, and another couple of hundred dynamic mics to choose from.

 

[Mickster]

I think it's VERY subjective how a mic sounds. Otherwise there would objectively be one mic that would be right. You might pick a mic that you like for my guitar because YOU like the sound. I might hate it. That's the very definition of subjective.

Instead you have a million people using 100 different mics to record the instruments and getting very acceptable results. 50-60 years ago, there was a limited number of decent mics out there, so choices were pretty limited, maybe 30 or so good mics. Today, there are probably over 250 different condenser mics from 30 or more different companies, and another couple of hundred dynamic mics to choose from.

Boddabing !! Well said.

 

[CoolCat]

timeline of it all is interesting to me....from small stores with 2 mic selections to internet with a thousand selections used, new, vintage, DIY, Modded...., and then the subjective stuff can leave me thinking, "mxl990 on billboard # 1 vocal track..." "AT2020 on Eilish 5 Grammy win vocal, into brother Finn's Focusrite stock interface....using stock yamaha speakers in a bedroom"....etc..etc.. none of this data was around before and Im sure theres a hundred more stories of mxls or shure 57's used on major recordings....mxl 603 on Weezers drum set comes to mind on a large selling commercial album...on and on..

internet helped leak all the details though, engineers discussing in great detail what plugins they used, what mics, forums, I mean I was able to ask Geoff Emerick a question and he replied.....Matt Wallace responded in a LinkedIn....weird?
Gearheads talking about gear...and all from my closet studio!

 

[Papanate]

I think it's VERY subjective how a mic sounds. Otherwise there would objectively be one mic that would be right. You might pick a mic that you like for my guitar because YOU like the sound. I might hate it. That's the very definition of subjective.

Instead you have a million people using 100 different mics to record the instruments and getting very acceptable results. 50-60 years ago, there was a limited number of decent mics out there, so choices were pretty limited, maybe 30 or so good mics. Today, there are probably over 250 different condenser mics from 30 or more different companies, and another couple of hundred dynamic mics to choose from.

If everyone could afford a could afford a Neumann U47 they would get it in a heartbeat. Affordability is what drives the Hobby Market - not quality. We have raced to the bottom to get our 'go to' microphone - let's see - $150 great - $5000 - snobbery.

 

[keith.rogers]

If everyone could afford a could afford a Neumann U47 they would get it in a heartbeat. Affordability is what drives the Hobby Market - not quality. We have raced to the bottom to get our 'go to' microphone - let's see - $150 great - $5000 - snobbery.

That's kind of a troll... Pro studios have both, and it's not snobbery, but what is expected in a setting like that. They'll use both an SM57 and a vintage Neumann if that's what is required, or, perhaps, expected, because that's what the customer wants to know is being done to get their money's worth.

Hobbyists spend what they can afford. Some amateur musicians spend $10s of thousands on their hobby, and others spend a few hundred. Pick any hobby, and that's the case, really. Both groups can discuss what's best, but their discussions probably aren't targeted at each other, and there's no need to get grumpy about it...

 

[Mickster]

If everyone could afford a could afford a Neumann U47 they would get it in a heartbeat. Affordability is what drives the Hobby Market - not quality. We have raced to the bottom to get our 'go to' microphone - let's see - $150 great - $5000 - snobbery.

Hmmmm........Isn't it the result that counts......and not the equipment? I'm absolutely sure I would buy a U47 if it was say......$500 or so. Not trying to disparage that mic....but so what? If what I produce with...as you say...."bottom" line equipment.....sounds as good or better....what's the debate then?

I know that some people like cheap stuff because it's cheap..........but there's no crime in that is there? And some people see expensive stuff as the best. And that's not always true...by any stretch.

As has been said here.......all of the above is subjective. All of it. No right and no wrong....just opinion. Everyone is entitled to theirs.

Mick

 

[CoolCat]

I dont know if its that easy, never having had a real U47, or whatever top end mic vs something cheaper etc.
If money was no option is speculative, lol...i dont know what Id do? probably would get a real U47....why not? but I might also not hear any magic and maybe the real U47 wouldnt make me sound any better than a V67G once I add eq and reverb and compression. It doesnt mean the U47 isnt a masterpiece collectors awesome "thing".

Im at a point where I can afford stuff I couldnt at 15yrs old, but my ears, in my closet room, for my fun HR only hasnt shown anything that makes the track perfect-magic and I all of a sudden sound like Capital Records. So yeah as a hobby for sure if the expensive one isnt making the big difference, I could use the money elsewhere. Some people can afford to own collectibles and some actually use a Mic Locker for recording bands.....it interests me, everyones inputs on the gear! like a sanity check.

I do think the build quality is often better in the expensive pro stuff, imo, but then Im not using gear on extreme sessions so budget might be fine and last forever.
And build quality might not have anything to do with sound. Even some old pro's say the Capsule is the big sound of a mic.

off topic of mics, but expensive vs cheaper, I grabbed this rev 1 collectible ISA 430 that popped up on CL, probably worth a few thousand to the right person, the newer ones used without the original 110 transformers are going for $2500...this rev 1 has all the original ISA110 design and transformers etc..
If I still sound like crap using it , doesnt mean the ISA 430 is bad, right? And actually Im very impressed that not one knob of the massive knobs , not one button, nothing has a crackle or pop...every single thing still works! impressive build quality. But if I find for me, the Free ISA430 plugin by Brainworx works just as good for me and my old ears, I might sell off the collectors item...Im not emotionally attached to gear really. Some sticks around like a 30yr old bass or a 10yr old piece of gear, that works.

Mics have been my current comparison too, lately, and I dont know the WA47 is a work of art imo, its gorgeous and all the top end parts inside, but for my low quality room and low usage the SM7b or any dynamic up close is fine too....again add eq, compression, verbs...autotune
Anyway Mics are the same in a way, theres a lot of cost built into the "collectible" stuff that is obsolete and on gold records like the U47 Im not convinced expensive stuff always sounds $50,000 better....or at least my old ears cant hear it.

good threads though. one thing I never spent the cash on is renting the expensive gear, the real 47 would be at the top of the list, or even a old U87, 67...heck yes! Im with Mickster on that, Id love to hear one in my own place.

 

[Papanate]

That's kind of a troll... Pro studios have both, and it's not snobbery, but what is expected in a setting like that. They'll use both an SM57 and a vintage Neumann if that's what is required, or, perhaps, expected, because that's what the customer wants to know is being done to get their money's worth.

Hobbyists spend what they can afford. Some amateur musicians spend $10s of thousands on their hobby, and others spend a few hundred. Pick any hobby, and that's the case, really. Both groups can discuss what's best, but their discussions probably aren't targeted at each other, and there's no need to get grumpy about it...

I don't know if I grumpy about it - just that people reel off this mythical $$$$ mic and say that this $ mic is just as good. That's hardly the case.

 

[Papanate]

Hmmmm........Isn't it the result that counts......and not the equipment? I'm absolutely sure I would buy a U47 if it was say......$500 or so. Not trying to disparage that mic....but so what? If what I produce with...as you say...."bottom" line equipment.....sounds as good or better....what's the debate then?

Good or better than what? The same recording with a U47? It's not likely - I'm not saying that you can't make okay recordings with the low budget microphones - just saying to stop comparing the $$$$ microphones as if there the same.

I know that some people like cheap stuff because it's cheap..........but there's no crime in that is there? And some people see expensive stuff as the best. And that's not always true...by any stretch.
As has been said here.......all of the above is subjective. All of it. No right and no wrong....just opinion. Everyone is entitled to theirs.

No of course not - but trying to say that the $ microphone with a little EQ and other things is the same as $$$$ microphone isn't subjective.

 

[TAE]

Trying to say that the $ microphone with a little EQ and other things is the same as $$$$ microphone isn't subjective.

What is subjective is the opinion of the listener.

The listening public could give a shit if a song was recorded with a $100 SM57 or a $4000 u47. If the song is recorded well and the song is a great song the masses absolutely no doubt about it could care less. Proof is in the pudding, 1000's of hit songs have been recorded on $100 mic's. A great expensive mic may be a little "warmer' or "special" but it does not in of it self make a song a success...garbage in garbage out..IMO way too much time and energy are wasted on trying to find the holy grail of equipment rather than the holy grail of writing and performing great songs. I surely still find myself distracted by the shiny objects of GAS that take my focus off of getting songs written and recorded.

 

[TAE]

.

 

[rob aylestone]

One thing I have noticed is that if you have in your studio, expensive mics, and people who are there recognise them, they never, ever criticise you for picking up something less expensive. They assume that with the 414s and U87 standing there, you picking a 57 or in my case a Samson C01 is done for a reason. I rather like the C01, it's a nice sounding mic, not too bright and has a kind of mellower sound than a typical condenser. I used to do lots of big band work and they were lovely on trombones. If you pulled a pair of these out of the box some people would snigger. If they see the 87 unused, the same people nod their heads in understanding. If I needed to sell a few mics - I do have a list of mics that I just don't use much - SM7B, EV 320, U87 - I could do without those three. My 3 old AKG 451s I would not let go, nor the Beyer 201 or of course the SM57s.
Oddly - the Beta 57s do little for me. Shure SM58s and Beta 58s I like, and I have a couple of SM86s I like on my voice rather than the 58s. I had two old regional Coles ribbons and I sold them on ebay. Very happy with the money and I didn't miss them at all.

Mics are like my tie collection. For 40 weeks of the year I no longer need them, but the remaining 10 weeks means I need to wear them. My favourites are like my mic collection. They're nice because I like them, not because of material, price or brand.

The truth - and I really believe this, is that all mics are good. There really are very few bad mics now, or before. However some have a 'character' - and that is what makes them special. Most without character, or even the wrong character can be tamed with EQ, and our choice means we often don't need, or only have very subtle EQ requirements. Faced with a nasty shreaky violin - I might take down the 451 and swap it for an old Oktava 319 because it will work better. I'd never use the 319s on old Bechstein pianos because the older ones are rather mellow anyway. A brand new Yamaha would be a good match for the 319.

I know now that you can buy a mic on line and send it back within 14 days for a full refund bar postage (UK law at the moment) but I've never had to do that. If I need a mic for a purpose - then the net is great. In the 'good old days' buying a mic was a scary process. Returns were like underwear purchases. Once you've used them, nobody else wants to, so you needed to be very certain.

 

[grimtraveller]

people reel off this mythical $$$$ mic and say that this $ mic is just as good. That's hardly the case.

I guess it depends from whose perspective you are viewing it from. A phrase like "as good" doesn't actually have any universally understood meaning.
I find that many of those that worship at the altar of high-priced gear come across as being seriously threatened when someone says their cheap gear is just "as good." For that person, it may be. I'm honestly at a loss why someone with thousands of whatever's worth of gear should care if someone else is doing well and making good recordings with either cheap gear or gear worth a fraction of their particular choices.

 

[TalismanRich]

The other issue that people sometimes forget is that just because it cost $10-20,000 to buy a vintage U47 today, that wasn't always the case. Retail prices in the early 50s was a few hundred bucks, around $4000 adjusted for inflation. Part of the allure is the rarity, Neumann reportedly only bought 6700 VF14 tubes for the U47s and 48s. Its just like saying that a '59 LP burst is the best guitar because someone spends $300,000 to buy one. In the early 60s, they were just another $250 used guitar.

I'm not saying it's not a great mic, but it certainly isn't the only worthy mic made, and in the context of the original discussion, it's certainly not a $300 starter mic.

 

[Mickster]

Good or better than what? The same recording with a U47? It's not likely - I'm not saying that you can't make okay recordings with the low budget microphones - just saying to stop comparing the $$$$ microphones as if there the same.

No of course not - but trying to say that the $ microphone with a little EQ and other things is the same as $$$$ microphone isn't subjective.

Hmmmm.....never said they were the SAME in any way. Physically...they couldn't be. Not likely sound wise either. But that's true of any two different mics....cheap...expensive...whatever.

"As good" refers to the RESULTS......AFTER EQ or whatever is applied..........not before. And you can't tell me that a U47 recording has never had or needed EQ right? So.....if you get to the result you want from a cheaper mic....and it's not a compromise in your mind if you're the producer.......then who cares?

"The same"....is subjective as far as a LISTENER is concerned. I'm not talking about a scientific measurement........because that would never matter to a listener.

The key word in this entire thread seems to be..........subjective. And by the way....the word OKAY is subjective as well of course. What is okay to one could be great to another.

Mick

 

[Papanate]

The listening public could give a shit if a song was recorded with a $100 SM57 or a $4000 u47.

I don't record with the listening public in mind.

1000's of hit songs have been recorded on $100 mic's.

What 1000's of songs? You don't know what the majority of songs were recorded with.

A great expensive mic may be a little "warmer' or "special" but it does not in of it self make a song a success...garbage in garbage out..IMO way too much time and energy are wasted on trying to find the holy grail of equipment rather than the holy grail of writing and performing great songs. I surely still find myself distracted by the shiny objects of GAS that take my focus off of getting songs written and recorded.

That isn't the point - saying that a $150 microphone with EQ and some other alterations is the equivalent of a $6000 microphone is nonsense. It's not about Holy Grail searches.

 

[Papanate]

"As good" refers to the RESULTS......AFTER EQ or whatever is applied..........not before. And you can't tell me that a U47 recording has never had or needed EQ right? So.....if you get to the result you want from a cheaper mic....and it's not a compromise in your mind if you're the producer.......then who cares?

EQ and various filtering affects the overall recorded tone - even when it approximates the more expensive microphone.

The key word in this entire thread seems to be..........subjective. And by the way....the word OKAY is subjective as well of course. What is okay to one could be great to another.

Well to begin with very few people know what a Neumann U47 is supposed to sound like - and whether a microphone sounds 'okay' is meaningless in the scheme of things because that lack of experience negates the choice.