Cheap chinese microphones vindicated

  • Thread starter Thread starter lexdrummer
  • Start date Start date
riznich said:
how do they let you return it. do they offer full refunds? or what?
Click to expand...
zzounds is a great site. I have had excellent results with them on many occasions. call them on the phone. Their people are pretty cool.
 
ah that looks like it could be useful and could replace my mixer actually since im just gona be using a mic. ahh now you just got me a bit confused again right when i thought i knew what i wanted haha. also would you recomend a 57 or 58, and would a mixer or a pre amp be better.
 
riznich said:
ah that looks like it could be useful and could replace my mixer actually since im just gona be using a mic. ahh now you just got me a bit confused again right when i thought i knew what i wanted haha. also would you recomend a 57 or 58, and would a mixer or a pre amp be better.
Click to expand...
57 and 58 are basically the same capsule, the 58 simple having a ball to keep wind and pop noises lower. The 57 is great, so the 58 having almost the same exact response, and having a windscreen will be more multipurpose. They do sound a little bit different, due to the way the sound enters through the 58's screen. But having it there will dispell your first annoyance when singing into the 57, which is learning how to work with it to prevent the wind and pop noises.

Employing the compressor/tube box shows the warmer qualities acheivable with the mic, as well as the compressor function allows you to stifle peaks and keep a more even signal while tracking.

get the 58 and the tube pac in the front chain department. pick up a 57 later if you want to get even closer to the source recorded at a later time. The 58 will give you great all/round results.
 
lexdrummer said:
57 and 58 are basically the same capsule, the 58 simple having a ball to keep wind and pop noises lower. The 57 is great, so the 58 having almost the same exact response, and having a windscreen will be more multipurpose. They do sound a little bit different, due to the way the sound enters through the 58's screen. But having it there will dispell your first annoyance when singing into the 57, which is learning how to work with it to prevent the wind and pop noises.

Employing the compressor/tube box shows the warmer qualities acheivable with the mic, as well as the compressor function allows you to stifle peaks and keep a more even signal while tracking.

get the 58 and the tube pac in the front chain department. pick up a 57 later if you want to get even closer to the source recorded at a later time. The 58 will give you great all/round results.
Click to expand...
I know this thread started out about chinese microphones, but if you are a beginner, start with a tried and true workhorse. Shure 57 and 58's are two of the finest microphones available at any price. Beuty is, they have been made for so long that the price is reasonable now. But they are still two of the flattest response microphones with the best sound for the money. And if you want to get technical, their frequency response is tested and true with decades of proof behind them. And just for mention, they are THE most durable microphone you can buy too boot. Period.
 
Lex it seems to me you're a 57 fan, well I'm not. I have more than 40 mics but only one 57 that never gets used for recording.

Because: on guitar cabs an MD421, MD441, M201, M69, M88, SP B1, V69M, V77S sounds a lot better.

On snare the SM57 can produce a great tone, but hi hat bleed sounds nasty. Besides that, the Beyer M201 is the best snare mic because it's a hyper cardioid with a very nice off axis response with an almost flat freq response from 50 to 18.000 hz.

On toms the 57 is not so good, an MD421 and even a SP B1 is much better.

On vocals the SM57 sounds boxy, an MD421 is a much better vocal mic, not to speak about the MD441 or the Beyer M88. Yes I know, they're much more expensive, but a Studio Projects BI is not and it will perform much better on nine out of ten applications.

I happen to own a Neumann M149 so I do have something to compare mics to.
I also have an MXL V69M and a V77S, a couple of SP B1's, a great number of classic mics like AKG C451, D12, a number of MD421MKI's a couple of old MD441's, a box full of Beyers, M201's M260 ribbons, M88's.

Funny thing though is that ten years ago I recorded bands with a Seck 1882 board, a couple of dynamic mics like MD421's, budget gear like Alesis Micro limiters and Midiverb.

I've done some wonderful sounding CD's, due to the great quality of the musicians that time.

Now I have a DDA-AMR board, Neumann mics, Lexicon processors and you know what? It doesn't sound much better. The DDA can do much more with it's EQ, but I prefer to have it bypassed. The Neumann is a much better vocal mic, but some vocals sound better with an inexpensive M69M or a Beyer M88.

The Lexicon is a much better verb processor, but somtimes I prefer the sound of an Alesis Microverb 1. The DBX compressors are much better, but an old Alesis Microlimiter can do wonders on kick and snare, dispite of the hiss it produces.

The old Seck 1882 board is less quiet than the big DDA, but somehow I love it's sound, a great little rock board it is.

Bottom line: it's the indian, not the arrow.
 
lexdrummer said:
Shure 57 and 58's are two of the finest microphones available at any price. Beuty is, they have been made for so long that the price is reasonable now. But they are still two of the flattest response microphones with the best sound for the money. And if you want to get technical, their frequency response is tested and true with decades of proof behind them. And just for mention, they are THE most durable microphone you can buy too boot. Period.
Click to expand...

Well... allow me to add a few comments to this statement:

I agree that they are two very good microphones, and rather durable. For live use, they are almost ubiquitous. For recording use they can be useful on some sources, depending on your style. Common use is as a snare mic, guitar amp mic or vocal mic on some voices, if you're not looking for a "polished" sound. They also commonly find some use on woodwinds. I'm sure they can be used elsewhere, but I would not use them as a first choice for e.g. acoustic guitar.

Saying they are "two of the finest mics available at any price..." is maybe a bit over the top, according to my own experience.

Also, they are definitely not flat at all! Not that you always want flat mics -- in most cases, the reason some mics are liked more than others is that they flatter the source in some way rather than being flat themselves (pun intended). Have a look here: http://www.shure.com/images/response/fSM58_large.gif -- I wouldn't call that flat... ;)

Hence, they are designed to have a mid range/precence boost, which, in the words of Shure (www.shure.com) is "tuned to accentuate the warmth and clarity of lead and back-up vocals" with its "carefully contoured presence rise". Definitely not flat.

Also, there is virtually no high end. Lots of "presence", but no "air". Depending on what you're recording, that may be just fine -- but the difference to a LDC mic will be striking, since these tend to boost also the "air" areas that are absolutely missing with the SM57/58.

Of course this also means the risk of a SM57/58 sounding peaky or harsh is small. But they may sound "boxy" at times.

Are the SM57 and SM58 "equal"? For general purpose, I would recommend the SM57. The SM58 sounds even duller due to the ball -- which you can remove, of course, but then there is no diaphragm protection. And a separate pop-filter (even if made of an old coat hanger and nylon stockings) is normally a good idea anyway.

They are also not so sensitive, so they need lots of clean gain. In order to sound their best, they need a good preamp. Entry level, a DMP3 or some such would be fine for this purpose. VTB1 is probably also OK for this use. Using them with an inexpensive mixer does not achieve the best possible sound.

They have a pretty narrow pattern, so they pick up less room sound. This is usually good in untreated rooms with lots of background noise from the PC, etc.

They are normally used close range, so the proximity effect adds some of the otherwise missing bass (see the frequency response). Used as room mics or as a stereo pair... well, I would probably not start out with them for that purpose.

Are they a good starter mic? Maybe. Don't expect to be able to achieve a polished pop sound. But due to their low sensitivity and narrow pattern, they also help to isolate the source from the room in the typical crappy sounding home studio.

As the only mic you have? Well, they are pretty coloured, so I would personally recommend another mic in addition, with a different colouring. In the same price range, the Studio Project B1 gets good recommendations here, and is also a good workhouse "do all" mic in the budget line. I think a SP B1 and a SM57 would make a good entry pair, combined with a DMP3. If you have a good sounding room, a Behringer ECM8000 may sound good. That one, being an omni SDC, is naturally flat, by the way. If you only go for one mic, I would personally want to start out with the SP B1 (not the Behringer B-1), but that is probably just me :)

Just for the record, I have both a SM58 and a SP B1 and some ECM8000 (plus a bunch of other, slightly more expensive, mics) in my "locker", so I have first hand evidence with all above, including the SM57. But my SM58 and similar dynamics (AKG) gets most use as live mics.


-- Per.
 
Han said:
Lex it seems to me you're a 57 fan, well I'm not. I have more than 40 mics but only one 57 that never gets used for recording.

Because: on guitar cabs an MD421, MD441, M201, M69, M88, SP B1, V69M, V77S sounds a lot better.

On snare the SM57 can produce a great tone, but hi hat bleed sounds nasty. Besides that, the Beyer M201 is the best snare mic because it's a hyper cardioid with a very nice off axis response with an almost flat freq response from 50 to 18.000 hz.

On toms the 57 is not so good, an MD421 and even a SP B1 is much better.

On vocals the SM57 sounds boxy, an MD421 is a much better vocal mic, not to speak about the MD441 or the Beyer M88. Yes I know, they're much more expensive, but a Studio Projects BI is not and it will perform much better on nine out of ten applications.

I happen to own a Neumann M149 so I do have something to compare mics to.
I also have an MXL V69M and a V77S, a couple of SP B1's, a great number of classic mics like AKG C451, D12, a number of MD421MKI's a couple of old MD441's, a box full of Beyers, M201's M260 ribbons, M88's.

Funny thing though is that ten years ago I recorded bands with a Seck 1882 board, a couple of dynamic mics like MD421's, budget gear like Alesis Micro limiters and Midiverb.

I've done some wonderful sounding CD's, due to the great quality of the musicians that time.

Now I have a DDA-AMR board, Neumann mics, Lexicon processors and you know what? It doesn't sound much better. The DDA can do much more with it's EQ, but I prefer to have it bypassed. The Neumann is a much better vocal mic, but some vocals sound better with an inexpensive M69M or a Beyer M88.

The Lexicon is a much better verb processor, but somtimes I prefer the sound of an Alesis Microverb 1. The DBX compressors are much better, but an old Alesis Microlimiter can do wonders on kick and snare, dispite of the hiss it produces.

The old Seck 1882 board is less quiet than the big DDA, but somehow I love it's sound, a great little rock board it is.

Bottom line: it's the indian, not the arrow.
Click to expand...
Bottom line: it's the indian, not the arrow.
totally on cue. Nice digs by the way.
I created a dependancy on the sm57 throughout many years of live sound. In the studio, it was always a go to for me as well, because this indian knew that arrow well. I would of course never chose it on some instruments, but then I would certainly try it. I suppose that might even be construed as being biased, but it really has a great and flat response that I have measured against hundreds. Maybe it's the tone it gives, or whatever. It can be warm, even near the hi-hat when you develope your sound and choice of cymbals accordingly. This is not stifling the player at all, nor his sound. I work alot with the tone of this mic, so maybe I taylor to it a little, but that has helped me to round out the rough edges in the kit itself. Am I making sense. Tired.
 
On another note, I think, you could very well call me a Dynamic Dependant or obsessive. Personally I friggin hate most condensors, but that's just my tone I am looking for. I've never understood those camps that desire the finest condensor alive because I find my tone more in the dynamic rhelm. Just give me a couple re20s, a 421 or two and a handfull of 57's and eights and I am right where I want to be. That's just me.

You'd be surprized at how much more time is free'd up to actual creativity once you are settled on your tool set. Sometimes not having all the options makes you work harder, but at least you are using it with confidence that the search is over. You found your sound catchers.
 
I agree with you about the dynamics, sometimes I get the impression that people think condenser mics are per definition better mics than dynamics.

Which is not true, a dynamic like the MD441 or RE20 wiil do better on horns (trumpet) than most condensers, not to speak of ribbons (which are dynamics too), these can sound wonderful.
 
Han said:
I agree with you about the dynamics, sometimes I get the impression that people think condenser mics are per definition better mics than dynamics.

Which is not true, a dynamic like the MD441 or RE20 wiil do better on horns (trumpet) than most condensers, not to speak of ribbons (which are dynamics too), these can sound wonderful.
Click to expand...
if the hounds come marching in they will probably pounce on that statement. But I agree whole hearted...obviously.
 
Sonic Idiot said:
Originally Posted by noisedude
I mean, Sorry dude, I guess I was just trying to make a point. I also smell like hot garbage. I love the Chinese. Thank you.
Click to expand...
That's better.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHHAAHAHA I smell like hot garbage??
 
lexdrummer said:
if the hounds come marching in they will probably pounce on that statement. But I agree whole hearted...obviously.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone disagree with it? You're looking for something that isn't there, dude.
 
By the way, the SM57 is only versatile in the sense that it sounds equally bad on everything. Excel at nothing, suck at nothing ... kinda. If you want that 'in a box, singing through a sock' sound, why not just pull a couple of sports 7-11 with arch supports over a microphone of your choice .... or just use subtractive EQ.

The Sennheiser E835 is one of the absolute best budget mics that exists. In many ways it sounds quite similar to an SM57, except it actually has some high-end response as well. That makes it usable in most settings, and more versatile than the 57 ever was. Even Shure knew that - it's why their Beta 57s and 58s are just the old mics but with some high frequencies in too. But the Sennheiser E range are cheaper and just as well built (and you'll never have a dented ball top on one of them either).

Some of my favourite mics, be they the budget ones I can afford or 'pro' priced ones, are dynamics. The rest are not dynamics. I can't say it bothers me either way, to be honest.

However, you're back onto the BS with talk of 'warming up' a DAW by using a cheap, muddy pre and an unfocussed mic. What are you so afraid of? The digital sound isn't 'cold', it's just accurate. It's an opportunity to make a better recording than you ever could have before - making real sounds rather than just hiding behind a mask of magnetic tape noise. Sure, have those valve mics and pres on hand, but if you don't like the sound of an accurate recording, why are you using a DAW to start with?

Oh, and the 57 does NOT go well with cheap pres. Nope.
 
oh man, more anonymous bad rep because i thought the comment "i smell like hot garbage" was funny??? Like little fucking jr. high school girls, all of you.....
 
the sm57 sounds fine to me. i like it better than crappier ldc's i've heard.

whenever i heard mp3s off this web page, the sm57 usually asserted people as modest homerecorders who're getting the job done, while these crappy ldcs assert people as home recorders who are trying to sound great and not getting the job done
 
(Stops masturbating for a moment). What are you guys talking about? Can I talk about it too? (Resumes masturbating).
 
cat-eggs said:
the sm57 sounds fine to me. i like it better than crappier ldc's i've heard.

whenever i heard mp3s off this web page, the sm57 usually asserted people as modest homerecorders who're getting the job done, while these crappy ldcs assert people as home recorders who are trying to sound great and not getting the job done
Click to expand...
Dude, maybe you don't realise you're a bit of a special case. Most people here could NEVER make music as good as yours, regardless of equipment. That doesn't mean that if you had better mics it wouldn't sound better - it just means that you're doing something special with what you have.

Plus, for the most part, you are exploiting the limits of home recording and going for a quite compact, quirky and intelligent sound. People who are trying to sound like the huge bands like Rage, U2 or anyone else who has a 'big' sound are struggling to do so and resort to better gear to try and get there.
 
He seems a little cagey about his older stuff and says he won't be putting new stuff online. However ... unless he tells me to take it down, this link is public knowledge anyway:

http://www.vaguelyoffensive.com/skydaddy.htm

It's the Bradlee Z stuff - Hi-Ho Stereo and Demolition are sooo cool. The Nirvana cover is a laugh, and everything else is fairly amusing, disturbing or just downright impressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top