Even a crap condenser is better than 57/58 for vocals
Finally got the wifey and kids out of the house to record a vocal track with
the AKG Perception 100 I just bought at guitar center ($149 and it came with a TubePre). This should be a crap setup according to this forum.
The mic is the cheaper Perception. The 200 has some switches on it and a shock mount. I don't know what to do with the switches anyway, so I thought I'd take a gamble and buy the crap recording package at guitar center.
TubePre was hard to get set so that it wasn't adding noise or distortion. Took a few tries to get a clean track. Maybe it is crap, but I needed the phantom power. I plugged my piezo bridge output from my electric into it and fooled around and it sounded better than nothing. I need EQ to get that sounding officially acoustic.
Condenser impressions? I suspected I was a better singer, and it turns out I was right. Vocal tracks with stage mics (shure 57/58) sound like shit. They are picking up such limied frequencies that my voice sounded weak and flat. the condenser is picking up what I thought my voice sounded like. I also can work the mic a bit during recording to get the dynamics and inflection that I use when singing w/ acoustic coffee-house-style.
So, the bottom line is even a crap condenser is better than dynamic stage mics. If you have a band and have been fooling around with recording using the mics you already have, scrape together a few bones and get a condenser. You won't be sorry.
I have no intention of producing a homespun album to distribute. I am recording songs I have written so I can capture the arrangement without having to write everything down. I'll give CDs to the guys in the band to learn the songs. I have to admit, I am juiced because it sounds so fricking good.