a good mic pls

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Many years ago I was part of a session with a very famous singer and to everyone surprise he requested a sm58 and didn't want to use headphones. So he recorded in the control room with the monitors on. The session was an adaptation of one of his songs for a themed entertainment so not album work but the performance was amazing . I'm sure none of the millions of people who listened to the work questioned what microphone was used :)
 
Bonio ?
Heard he has done this. Monitors wired out of phase for a degree of cancellation at the mic. Don't quote me. Might be a myth 😊

Assuming it wasn't handheld, one CAN record a second pass of the backing track out of the monitors, and reverse polarity of that track after syncing up with the first vocal pass.
 
Many years ago I was part of a session with a very famous singer and to everyone surprise he requested a sm58 and didn't want to use headphones. So he recorded in the control room with the monitors on. The session was an adaptation of one of his songs for a themed entertainment so not album work but the performance was amazing . I'm sure none of the millions of people who listened to the work questioned what microphone was used :)
Yeah, for sure! 👍
Many great performances, have been recorded with Shure SM-58’s. And sold millions of units.

This quite famous female singer in Canada would show up to sessions with her own SM-57 and insisted on using only that (through a good pre-amp) for her albums. Balls!!!

M
 
Yeah, for sure! 👍
Many great performances, have been recorded with Shure SM-58’s. And sold millions of units.

This quite famous female singer in Canada would show up to sessions with her own SM-57 and insisted on using only that (through a good pre-amp) for her albums. Balls!!!

M
In the 80's I successfully used the Shure 565SD to record a multitude of vocal or instrumental sources. Only later I hardly managed to get a sm58 (I lived in a country like North Korea, I didn't have easy access to professional equipment)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20250302_215403.jpg
    IMG_20250302_215403.jpg
    287.6 KB
The Dunning-Kruger effect perfectly describes the behavior and inability of some people to recognize their own level, precisely because of the lack of knowledge in the field. And because of personal overestimation, and the acute lack of critical, rational thinking.

Bingo! Our schools teach children they are ALL good, valuable, and worthy. That is, of course, OK because everyone should feel good about himself. Yet, they go too far teaching everyone can be whatever he wants to be, as if every kid really can become President, or play better than Michael Jordan, or be a brain surgeon like Jethro Bodine (a particularly apropos example of one who is substantially more confident in his abilities than he deserves.) :)

This sort of delusional self-appraisal drives many YouTubers to pretend they are all experts helping others become voice over artists, and produce YET ANOTHER "review" of the SM-58, or yet another video proclaiming this or that is THE best microphone, in a never ending string of "best" microphone reviews week after week. They actually believe they are recording engineers making a valuable contribution.

The Dunning-Kruger effect describes this phenomenon well. Further reinforcement is the large number of delusional YouTube FOLLOWERS who subscribe to these silly channels and defend the producers against all comers who deign to post a negative comment or call them out, because they, in turn, feel so incompetent (yet hopeful) they look up to these shills as "experts" trying to help them along their journey to stardom. Of course, we are all stars in our own way ... sort of ... I mean, if you have your own channel, you must be good. Right?

Spot on, and you struck that awful nerve again, Mr. @micolas. J

PS -- there is an equally egregious parallel delusional patten among novice amateur radio operators. For some silly reason, they consider themselves experts simply because they passed a license exam. Trust me, that is NOT enough to qualify anyone as an expert on anything. Many want to become volunteer examiners to "give back to the ham community" ... um ... like for what? Proctoring a written exam? Sheesh! We now have a whole cadre of young operators on YouTube producing silly sophomoric videos about all sorts of basic topics, like how to build a simple dipole antenna - as if we need more videos on that banal topic - a colossal, duplicitous waste of time, as if they discovered it first! The foolishly hold themselves out as experts as if everyone else is an ignoramus. They foolishly believe they are making a significant and important contribution to the science; notwithstanding there are hundreds of books and previous videos which already supply more detailed technical - so, manifesting the Dunning-Krugger effect, they drive on and on, and anyone who criticizes them is declared an enemy of the hobby! It is just plain NUTS. / J
 
Assuming it wasn't handheld, one CAN record a second pass of the backing track out of the monitors, and reverse polarity of that track after syncing up with the first vocal pass.
Some vocalist’s live sound is the sound they want on a recording so using a ‘58 would make sense, also the performance aspect as being used to that mic and how to get the vocal nuances from proximity that may be different (and difficult) using a condenser.

If there’s no lag (the sound of the backing to your ears is in sync perfectly with the vocal) and your own voice is not in the monitor mix (because you don’t need it to be) the spill of the backing track into the mic would be so close to “in sync” it wouldn’t matter - after all it’s going to be in the mix anyway and if close miking as you would with a ‘58 the vocal/monitor spill ratio would be very high.

I had to record a small girls choir, 36 girls doubling twice to sound like a much bigger choir, and we didn’t have the facilities to provide headphones to all so we used none - just two speakers behind the mics, close to the choir and the lag was so small you virtually couldn’t hear it and was easily adjusted.

On mixdown the trick was to mix the vocals to an already mixed backing track and slide the backing track mix until it matched the waveform of itself to the waveform of the spill recorded in the vocal tracks. Easy to do on expanded waveform view. No need for any cancellation or phase reversal.

At a couple of meters distance from the monitors in a control room the lag would be less than 6mSec.
 
It might be invalid to evoke Dunning-Kruger here due to the highly subjective evaluation of microphone quality. We'd be comparing self-subjective vs group-subjective instead of self-subjective vs measurable objective.

Dunning-Kruger is more applicable if there IS a best microphone for this guy that is more easily identifiable by those with more knowledge than him. I'm not sure if that's objectively true, but perhaps it can be subjectively true through consensus.
 
I think the bottom line could be that the best way to find the best mic for a given environment is to go and hire a stack of different mics of reputable quality and proven performance and see which is the best. Even if it costs more than buying the mic at least you might end up with the one you really need - if you needed a different one at all - maybe you’ll find that the one you had was the best anyway.

With a multichannel interface with a stack of mics all hooked up and arrayed close to each other you can do A-B-C-D-E-F comparisons with the simultaneously recorded vocal tracks. Or just repeat the same vocal passage with a new mic each time
 
I think the bottom line could be that the best way to find the best mic for a given environment is to go and hire a stack of different mics of reputable quality and proven performance and see which is the best. Even if it costs more than buying the mic at least you might end up with the one you really need - if you needed a different one at all - maybe you’ll find that the one you had was the best anyway.

With a multichannel interface with a stack of mics all hooked up and arrayed close to each other you can do A-B-C-D-E-F comparisons with the simultaneously recorded vocal tracks. Or just repeat the same vocal passage with a new mic each time
With each microphone I interact differently, I look for my spatial position relative to the microphone and adjust my vocal technique, to like how it captures my vibe.
So I test each microphone individually and try to make the most of it.
During this time, I don't think about the technical specifications, FR, etc., I just close my eyes, talk, sing, listen and try to like each other (me and the microphone).
Everything happens in my environment, in my acoustic space that I know, in which I will use the microphones the most.
I don't use a compressor for these tests.
In the end, I like several microphones solo and in the mix. I label them with artist/song names, depending on what each one reminds me of.
I listen after a while again, sometimes I change my impressions.
I also invite other ordinary people or sound engineering experts to express their opinions.

Edit:
An important note:
The microphones I choose for singing are different from the ones I prefer for voice-over. I think we transfigure our voice differently for each situation.
 
Last edited:
Too true. So when looking for empirical results in a non blind test probably the best method is to set each mic for optimum (to the ears) position relative to the vocalist and room and maybe repeat the same vocal passage for comparison.
The A-B-C-D type comparison is more suited to distance placement comparisons like for overhead or room mics to see which suits the kit sound - although for acoustic guitars I’ve often set up a pair of mics on a twin mount bar to see which I would favour of two possibilities.
 
I think the bottom line could be that the best way to find the best mic for a given environment is to go and hire a stack of different mics of reputable quality and proven performance and see which is the best. Even if it costs more than buying the mic at least you might end up with the one you really need - if you needed a different one at all - maybe you’ll find that the one you had was the best anyway.

With a multichannel interface with a stack of mics all hooked up and arrayed close to each other you can do A-B-C-D-E-F comparisons with the simultaneously recorded vocal tracks. Or just repeat the same vocal passage with a new mic each time
https://slatedigital.com/ml1-modeling-microphone/
 
Good idea - Slate does do good plugins - but for example the characteristics of air passage past a Coles 4038 ribbon is a little different to the characteristics of a large circular diaphragm mic. You can emulate the tonal character but when it comes down to high SPL performance there will be a difference.

In the studio I work at the moment we use a pair of Coles 4038 as close overheads on the drums, or sometimes AKG C451’s depending on kit and drummer - the response of a diaphragm on say a C451 or a KM84 or a 4038 ribbon is very different for each depending on diaphragm or ribbon weight and tension, mic body/capsule tuning characteristics providing mechanical impedance etc. (and of course electronics) and using the Slate large diaphragm M1 mic with emulation as it will have its own physical mechanical features - I don’t think it can match exactly in that type of environment.

It may be that the Slate will be better suited to vocal or acoustic guitar applications.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top