i don't know how, and i don't wanna know...

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

QUEEF BAG

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
563
Location
Seattle
a friend of mine (kevin) teaches audio at one of the art institutes...
lots of forehead slapping down there 'cause of the kids, but this?

so kevin is about to head out the doors to go home, and he sees a kid with a new looking SM58,
the odd thing is the kid has a bic pen, and is digging into the wind screen with it.

kevin, of course, asks "what are you doing?"

kid says  "tryin' to get the peanut butter out."
 
some vocalists eat the mic, and some REALLY eat the mic.

i guess it might as well taste good?
 
u87 upper mid-range spike, more a nail gun, less of a hammer. God I hate that mic.

Raise your hands if you've bumped into some idiot engineer who chose u87 because it sounds obviously more clear and immediately impressive compared to, well, anything. And then it's your job to get rid of that spike.  :mad:

"Dude, The U87 is an awsome horn mic"

Aih!
 
A perfect example of why I'm in no rush to breed.  I can't imagine having one of those stupid kids under MY roof.  I don't know how my parents did it.  :D

And since the thread got sidetracked...  When I came to work at my current studio, I unsuccessfully tried them on everything and everyone.  Then one day, I stopped trying them.  The day after that, I hid them so no one could hurt anyone again.
 
Try telling Ken Scott an 87 is no good.  He made some of the best records made and used them everywhere.  I think analog tape and 87's worked great.  The Tape tamed the spike and still had presents.  But today short of an aggressive announcer for a Radio spot, I don't use them like I did in the past.

On another Sm58 story,  I knew a roady for Chaka Khan.  He told stories about the lipstick build up problem on the windscreens.  Kind of gross. 
 
Yes, and Ken Scott had tape, as did the countless of others who swore by that mic in the golden age of tape. Problem is the thousands of DAW jockeys (who mistakenly call themselves engineers) taking that information unfiltered and just sticking the mic in front of anything because [insert some token engineer name] did that on [insert classic record from the seventies] to keep brightness for the lacking media.

Also it stands out like a sore thumb in mic shoot outs. Easily mistaken for "more open sound and detail".
 
Dismissing a microphone out of hand is ridiculous. Are we talking about the original version, the Ai version?
What pre-amp, what compressor, what application, what day? What Gearslutz thread?

Last time I checked, the U87 sounds great in a number of applications.

Just send all those crappy microphones my way, I'll make good use of them tape or no tape.

Mark
 
you're correct a film of Beer will change the sound ,
but then film is a cool word  , but the word cool is not
so
if you have only a 57 or an 87 , they're great mics
but if you have both , you have a choice
 
  Oh, I love it! I just opened the can of worms . . . .! Yay! . . . . . Push those buttons . . . . .



  just for the record, I havent used an 87 of any flavour for at least a decade, but then I am spoilt for other wonderful LDCs.(u48, Sela T25, C12 clone,  I have just been using a very fine M367, and that IS a mighty fine microphone. (M269 without remote pattern switching, made for RTF)


    honk honk honk . . . . . we used to call ours the goose . . . . It lived in the mic cupboard. Then I took its guts out, installed the InnerTube retrofit, and now it is in regular use on acoustic guitars at which it excells.) - well, it USED to be an 87 . . . .
 
Useless I'd say.

Swedien_02.jpg


2777435516_0a28786ff1_o.jpg


4-BassCab-570x320.jpg


dsc059901.jpg


Jerry_Boys_17.jpg


 
Back
Top