Priority: mics or preamps?

[ef37a]

I only have SM58 which according to

My top vocal mic recommendations are -
3. SM58. With a good analogue EQ, you can even make it sound like a U87/TLM103.

So now I'm on the sale special offers hunt for an emulation Neve channel strip with EQ from Brainworx either the one Drew uses or the one Sonics mentioned
bx_console Focusrite SC.
Logic has a bundled emulation Neve 1073 EQ it's alright not too shabby.
I use SM58 for more than just vocal.

You can make any mic sound like any other mic with a good EQ, if that’s true, why do people spend so much money on mic's?
The SM58 is an awful mic, I hate it, always have done, it reminds me of all those times when it was a case of "it’ll do" as we can’t afford anything better.

This time I agree with you Tony! Yes, you can "EQ the ****" out of a 58 and approximate another microphone but you cannot duplicate the damping and transient response of a capacitor or a ribbon. There is also the polar response. A capacitor and a dynamic might both be called "cardioid" but because they work on very different principles there will be subtle differences on the way they pickup off axis sounds and that will vary with frequency.

You CAN use a lump hammer to take a speaker cab apart but a screwdriver is a much more subtle tool!

Dave.

[Wonks]

The ‘good analogue EQ’ that The Bladder has in mind is probably something that costs more than a U87.

[tea for two]

The ‘good analogue EQ’ that The Bladder has in mind is probably something that costs more than a U87.

Prolly lol. C'mon Blad spill the beanz.

[The Red Bladder]

The ‘good analogue EQ’ that The Bladder has in mind is probably something that costs more than a U87.

Guilty as charged!

But the old 58 just needs a bit of EQ to make the sound 'pop' and come to life. Of course, if your signal path contains 'nasties' then the nasties come to life - distortion is not sparkle! And TBH, Neumanns are not without nasties themselves - just stick one onto an oscilloscope and put a test signal through them and you will see!

There is no such animal as the 'perfect' microphone - they all have their downsides and some have strengths. The SM58 has great resistance to handling and popping, the U87 has a breathy quality, the Audix D6 combines good bass with good transient response in key frequencies - I could go on and on and . . . well, you get the idea!

[Drew Stephenson]

And so much of it is about matching the mic to the voice. Personally I find there are other mics in the same price range that work better with my voice than an SM58. But Bono uses one all the time and it doesn't seem to have held back his earnings.
Horses and courses.

[tea for two]

Wonky Wabbit's review of SM58 clones.
https://www.soundonsound.com/forum/view ... hp?t=70540

I wouldn't mind a handful of SoS forum recommended mics up to £100 such as

Given a choice, and with a female singer in mind, and with a decent sounding PA I'd currently spend a bit more and go for a £50 AKG D5 instead, which I know has an noticeably brighter character and doesn't need phantom power.

[Hugh Robjohns]

You can make any mic sound like any other mic with a good EQ, if that’s true, why do people spend so much money on mic's?

Because it's not actually true... or at least, only doable under certain specific situations.

You can use EQ to change the on-axis frequency response of one mic to resemble another... but there may well be a significant noise penalty if you're trying to turn an SM58 into a U87.

And even then, it can't replicate the time-domain behaviour — the diaphragm in an SM58 has a great wodge of copper wire glued to the back of it, imposing considerable inertia which isn't the case for the feather-light diaphragm in a U87.

In a very dead vocal booth, the off-axis response is largely irrelevant, but that's not going to be the case in a studio with spill from other instruments, and EQ can't match the behaviour of one mic to another in that situation.

The other issue, which Dave aluded to above, is the very different proximity effect behaviour of a dual-diaphgram mic like the U87 and a single diaphragm mic like the SM58. Again, a dynamic function that's not matchable with EQ.

So yes, you can EQ an SM58 to 'pop' with presence and detail to sound similar to a U87 in some specific circumstances... but it doesn't come close to enjoying all the acoustic benefits of real U87 in more general applications.

[James Perrett]

The one thing that the SM58 and U87 have in common is that they work acceptably well across a range of sources and voices. Most other mics seem to have weak spots - sources that they really don't work well on. For that reason I would want to have one or both of them in any studio that I was working in.

[ore_terra]

… But Bono uses one all the time and it doesn't seem to have held back his earnings.

Every time I read this I think that we really don’t know how hard the mixing engineers had to work on Bono’s vocal track just because the guy didn’t want to get on the U67

[tea for two]

The one thing that the SM58 and U87 have in common is that they work acceptably well across a range of sources and voices. Most other mics seem to have weak spots - sources that they really don't work well on. For that reason I would want to have one or both of them in any studio that I was working in.

It's nice that I made a sound choice.
I could at the time get just one mic and under £100. So I choose the mic most versatile for me SM58 on various sources.
For same similar reasons versatility I'm after your recommended zoom U-44.

::

I hate it

For professional reasons, yes we do require certain gear.
For wanting certain types of recordings, yes we do require certain gear.
For wanting certain sounds from say Guitars, yes we do acquire certain Guitars.
However we are the main gear we are the conduit.
Without us they are inanimate.

I've made the most of what I have content with it.
This is myself as a person of limited ability limited means.
As an amateur hobbyist unnecessary for me to go beyond cheap gear, cheap gear which admittedly would look like it's a kind of magic lol to music makers before the 90s, esp software audio interface computer.

[Drew Stephenson]

Ha! Very true!

But a lot of it is down to the old adage about performance and material trumping everything else. I'd rather be working with a technically sub-par, but passionately delivered lead vocal than the other way around. And almost anything that helps the talent get into the right mindset would be worth that trade off for me.

[The Red Bladder]

There seems to be some misconception within this thread. All this talk of what mic and what pre-amp fails to deal with the most important aspect of any recording. To highlight that, I shall tell you a story -

A long time ago, I was talking to the guy who recorded or helped to record Nora Jones. She was a thing at the time (about 10-15 years ago) and the vocals on those recordings were stunning - so I asked the obvious question "How did you get that breathy, airy sound? It really sounds unique!"

The answer - "We just shoved a U87 in front of her and that was it. Nothing special. We could have used any decent LDC or even an SM58 - that's what she sounds like. I don't think we used EQ and there was certainly none going in."

And there you have it. If the singist that is yodeling into the mic does not have that breathy, airy sound of Nora Jones, there is a reason - she ain't Nora Jones!

If you are lumped with recording the squint-eyed fat bird from down the road who always sings chesty and flat, you could stick an M149 or a vintage God-knows-what in her face and she will still sound chesty and flat.

And after we have fixed the issue of the yodeller, the next important issue is WHERE is he or she yodelling. If the room sounds boxy and unpleasant, it matters little which mic or pre you use.

(And bedroom studios tend to sound better for vocals than many semi-pro rooms because they are cluttered with the detritus of a young man's bedroom - and they have a special atmosphere all of their own. Usually that means the smell of stale beer and farts.)

But here's a tip for those looking for a better sound - Neumann mics are hotter! And their valve/tube mics are hotter than most - that means that the mic pre has less work to do and even a grotty pre will sound good.

I have often put M149s through some cheap nonsense pre, either in a test or for a two-to-four-mic location job and the results were still excellent. Do the same with an SM58 and it will sound thin - not because there is anything wrong with it, but because the pre is working closer to the end of it's range.

The classic Rupert design uses three-stage amplification - balanced first stage, followed by two single-legged stages. That helps to compensate for the feeble 5-10mV coming out of an SM58. But TBH, nearly all halfway decent modern pres will deal with a low input voltage without any difficulty - this ain't the 70s!

But the order in which we deal with the technical quality of the vocals is - (1) singer, (2) room, (3) mic, (4) pre-amp.

But as always, over and above all that is the quality of the music.

[tea for two]

TRB

What you have said is

However we are the main gear we are the conduit.
Without us they are inanimate.

It is through us that gear, instruments, recordings are given life.

::

But as always, over and above all that is the quality of the music.

For the hundreds of styles of music out there in the World there's billions people with views of music they dig think is good, music they don't dig they think is pants.
So it's not quality as such it's just subjective.

[Essex Boi]

If you are lumped with recording the squint-eyed fat bird from down the road who always sings chesty and flat, you could stick an M149 or a vintage God-knows-what in her face and she will still sound chesty and flat.

Steady on. That’s my sister you’re talking about. And anyway, she’s lost a lot of weight since going on the Jack Ruston Diet.

[sonics]

But here's a tip for those looking for a better sound - Neumann mics are hotter! And their valve/tube mics are hotter than most - that means that the mic pre has less work to do and even a grotty pre will sound good.

I have often put M149s through some cheap nonsense pre, either in a test or for a two-to-four-mic location job and the results were still excellent. Do the same with an SM58 and it will sound thin - not because there is anything wrong with it, but because the pre is working closer to the end of it's range.

You seem to be suggesting that at higher gain, some preamps have an altered frequency response. Are you talking about specific preamps?

[Hugh Robjohns]

You seem to be suggesting that at higher gain, some preamps have an altered frequency response. Are you talking about specific preamps?

It's a depressingly common design failure that afflicts quite a few preamps — even scarily expensive ones.

Ideally the frequency (and phase) response should remain flat at all gain settings, but in many case the gain stage runs out of what is called "gain-bandwidth product".

In most amplifier designs the gain reduces as the frequency increases — it's a normal function of electronics — and it's no bad thing as long as it happens several octaves above the audio band (as it reduces the risk of RFI). But in a poor amplifier this falling HF gain can encroach into the audio band.

For example, the scarily expensive Neumann V402 shows a falling HF response at higher gain settings. In this particular case it's mild — just -0.5dB at 20kHz — and I've measured far worse (including some I've refused to publish a review for!), but there is absolutely no excuse for it happening at all. It's incompetent design, plain and simple, often due to penny-pinching and corner-cutting.



In some cases, the low-end can suffer instead (or as well), usually because of a problem with the feedback circuitry impedance affecting the LF roll-off... for example:

And here's an example that suffers at both ends of the spectrum:

As my favourite example of a perfect preamp, it's telling that Cranborne's Camden / EC2 / EC1 mic preamps offer significantly more gain than most competitors, yet maintain a perfectly flat and consistent frequency/ phase response to well above the audio bandwidth. So it can be done, even in affordably priced gear.

[sonics]

Thanks Hugh. I'm aware of those issues, but although I've experienced slight differences myself, it's been changes in upper treble, low bass, noise and, primarily, distortion. I've not experienced a preamp sounding noticeably thin just because it has more gain. Any source will, of course, sound "thinner" if it's quieter.

[Hugh Robjohns]

...I've not experienced a preamp sounding noticeably thin just because it has more gain.

That second example I posted above definitely did! But, thankfully, there are rarely that many preamps that are that blatant!

I've no idea what TRB was doing and what he was using to make his SM58s sound so poor. The sound of the 58 can change noticeably with preamp input impedance... and if high gain was needed because the vocalist had backed off the mic (like they might for an M1459) then the dramatic loss of proximity effect would have made it go very thin... And that seems a more likely scenario to me.

Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for mic preamps to run out of steam at their highest gain settings with a resulting audible change to their frequency response (and other characteristics as you've noted).

[The Red Bladder]

I've no idea what TRB was doing and what he was using to make his SM58s sound so poor. The sound of the 58 can change noticeably with preamp input impedance... and if high gain was needed because the vocalist had backed off the mic (like they might for an M1459) then the dramatic loss of proximity effect would have made it go very thin... And that seems a more likely scenario to me.

It was a series of controlled tests I did for my own amusement ages ago (over 20 years ago I think) that involved a 90s Behringer Eurodesk (that later went up in smoke!)

I wanted to know if the B was good enough for foldback - it obviously was not and was replaced with some Phonics (every muso gets their own to play with, so that the engineer does not have to faff about with FB) which, although far from top-notch, were light years better than the B.

All I can remember is doing an A:B with the studio desk pre and using a Genelec speaker at a set distance. I do remember that GBP was not the only problem at high gain - noise, distortion - it was all there for me to enjoy! (I should have kept notes!)

I am sure that B will have improved, but that put me off their products and I have studiously avoided them ever since.

[sonics]

Interesting. It shows that there have been a few shockers in preamp design! Hugh, your second example is still basically flat at 0dB.

As for the Behringer, I still have my 15-year old mixer which sounds better to me than any of the few small Phonic mixers I've ever heard.

Lessons here are that you cannot discount all products from a company because of a bad experience with one (X32 and DeepMind are excellent!), and also that good companies can make bad products!

[tea for two]

As my favourite example of a perfect preamp, it's telling that Cranborne's Camden / EC2 / EC1 mic preamps offer significantly more gain than most competitors, yet maintain a perfectly flat and consistent frequency/ phase response to well above the audio bandwidth. So it can be done, even in affordably priced gear.

I have earmarked as it were the Cranborne EC1.
Were I recording other people then it would be a no brainer for me to get EC1.
As a high class front end to any existing budget computer audio interface I have.
As per Matt's review
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/cr ... camden-ec1

Instead of wasting my hard saved pennies on something else no matter how esoteric, lauded brand name.

common design failure that afflicts quite a few preamps — even scarily expensive ones.
But in a poor amplifier this falling HF gain can encroach into the audio band.
For example, the scarily expensive Neumann V402 shows a falling HF response at higher gain settings. In this particular case it's mild — just -0.5dB at 20kHz — and I've measured far worse (including some I've refused to publish a review for!)

In some cases, the low-end can suffer instead (or as well), usually because of a problem with the feedback circuitry impedance affecting the LF roll-off.

[tea for two]

but there is absolutely no excuse for it happening at all. It's incompetent design, plain and simple, often due to penny-pinching and corner-cutting.

As my favourite example of a perfect preamp, it's telling that Cranborne's Camden / EC2 / EC1 mic preamps offer significantly more gain than most competitors, yet maintain a perfectly flat and consistent frequency/ phase response to well above the audio bandwidth. So it can be done, even in affordably priced gear.

For me the follow up is which components to use, which components to avoid so as to have a go at Mike Skeet(ing) such gear as EC1 for myself : the TfT0 lol.
Although I don't place much store in my crummy abilities nor do I have the engineering equipment to do so.

[ef37a]

but there is absolutely no excuse for it happening at all. It's incompetent design, plain and simple, often due to penny-pinching and corner-cutting.

As my favourite example of a perfect preamp, it's telling that Cranborne's Camden / EC2 / EC1 mic preamps offer significantly more gain than most competitors, yet maintain a perfectly flat and consistent frequency/ phase response to well above the audio bandwidth. So it can be done, even in affordably priced gear.

For me the follow up is which components to use, which components to avoid so as to have a go at Mike Skeet(ing) such gear as EC1 for myself : the TfT0 lol.
Although I don't place much store in my crummy abilities nor do I have the engineering equipment to do so.

You need not be too concerned about "special components" tea. Yes, under some quite stringent test condition, certain foil capacitors show more distortion than others but you would be hard put to hear the difference IMHO.

Electrolytic capacitors do produce much more distortion but only as the frequency descends such that there is some tens of mV across them but the solution is simple. Use a bigger cap!

It always amuses me when certain products boast the use of "abxy's Audio capacitors" then stick a bloody transformer in the audio path!

Dave.

[Arpangel]

A mic like the U87 has a lovely deep bass, that very difficult to replicate accurately if at all, I find the bass end of good mics is what cheap mic’s never have and it’s what gives them away.