Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

I was working on my voice earlier, going through The Dickies second album, Dawn of the Dickies. I was taping it to get an objective listen. I've never liked my voice. I can hit the notes alright. But, I just don't like my voice. Anyway, my "wife" overheard it playing back and said that a big problem is the microphone. I've been using the same Realistic condenser mic I got in a pawn shop over 25 years ago. Could that be why I don't like my voice? Shitty microphones? I can't make a comparison between my live singing and a taped performance. So, I'll have to take her word that she hears a difference. I can't afford a high end $1,000-$2,000 dollar mic. But, maybe a simple Shure SM57 and a preamp would make a difference. I don't know. I'm not gonna go whole hog with auto-tune or anything like that. But, how important is a good vocal microphone? Or anything else in the signal chain?

Without a good vocal mic your screwed.
It is really that simple Mike.

We've tried a lot of mics. And even to "amateur" ears the difference is quite obvious. The Sure mics are good "all around " choice. But the mic really needs to match your voice for the best reproduction of your range and tonal quality.

952 Cormran Megatone. Nothin like it!

Hayden King wrote:952 Cormran Megatone. Nothin like it!

Huh?

sanshouheil wrote:Without a good vocal mic your screwed.
It is really that simple Mike.

We've tried a lot of mics. And even to "amateur" ears the difference is quite obvious. The Sure mics are good "all around " choice. But the mic really needs to match your voice for the best reproduction of your range and tonal quality.

Which models did you try? What differences did you notice? What did you end up using? The only thing I'm sure of is that the directional pattern should isolate the vocals pretty well from any bleed through from other instruments or noises. Cardioid or unidirectional.

Gee I'd have to talk with the vocalist to get a full list Mike.
We, like most bands started using whatever used or cheap equipment we could get our hands on.

Our first real new acquisition were Carvin mics I purchased with the PA.
These are good super-cardioid mics and some of them ( especially the drum mics ) are still in use.

Ray purchased an SM58. It works better to limit off axis sound IMO and reduces incidence of feed back.
I also believe it is a more true reproduction of Rays natural tone as subjective as that is, I really have no "hard evidence" to back this up.

Tony happened across some used mics and after trying them both out settled on an old Fender.
I suits his voice better IMO with better mid-range dynamic and seems easier to EQ the "middle mud" out.
Also a cardioid pattern, but apparently as broad or more so than the Carvins as it seems more prone to feedback issues.
I have to qualify this though because Tony hand holds his mic and is not always very conscious of where it's pointed

The only condensers we use are the two overheads in the drum set.
Also Carvin of manufacture, and utilize a switch for either an internal AA battery or phantom power from the PA. I opt for the battery function again because there seems a smaller propensity for feedback issues.

Hope this helps.

RGMixProject wrote:

Hayden King wrote:952 Cormran Megatone. Nothin like it!

Huh?

Never heard of em?

Does anyone actually like their own voice? I bought about 10 mikes in the last few years. I like the SM58 a lot. Then I replaced those with Nady SPC-25s that really do a nice job. The SPC-25 is a condenser mike that sounds close to the SM-58. It has more volume without feedback, and it runs off a single AA battery for about 40 hours. Less that $50 at that. A great banger for use on a bandstand when you don't want to risk the big buck mikes.

I also bought several of those "Studio mikes" with the big gold spattered diaphragms. I REALLY liked them but you almost have to have a sound proof booth to use one.
Because of the frequency range and sensitivity I do prefer condenser mikes. I have found that a bit of EQ on a mixer can get rid of any freq response problems you may get with any mike.

I hate singing into mikes. I do not have a clue about keeping consistent volume or proximity effects. Like I said. In a word. Clueless.

I am working on that but I do not enjoy it. I guess I'll always be a picker at heart.

dood man, if you're recording, it's an industry standard to utilise a condenser vs dynamic.
And there are good reasons for this.
You can achieve decent results if you spend a little over a buck, in MHO.

Not saying an SM58 wouldn't work, guess it depends upon your goals & especially, your wallet.

hyper cardiod is good for reducing off axis bleed, or super cardiod. I am using a couple mics. the pg 58 is an sm58 but lower end, and a beta 58. I got the beta to use with the harmonizer to reduce bleed. it's a very punchy mic. the sure mics have a mid boost that enhances most vocals

the Cormran 952 Megatone!

Mike, you didnt state which model Realistic you have, so I couldnt look up it's frequency response chart.

From my experience, The Shure SM58 is a great live vocal mic because of its frequency response.....between 100hz and 1000khz, it is quite flat, then it spikes when you get into the higher frequencies. This mic is a great stage mic because it dose not sound muddy due to it's shortage of low-end response. Compared to the SM57, which has even less low-end response, the 57 starts to flatten at 120, dips until 160hz, then flattens out to 1200khz. The 57 would be a better stage mic for someone with a higher singing range, like a female singer. I have seen plenty of male singers use the SM57 on stage, and I use them on tom-toms and cymbals but I've never seen one used to record vocals with.

When we get into the high-priced mics, like the Neuman U87, we are looking at a frequency response that starts to get flat at 50hz and stays flat all the way out to 5Khz. That is an awesome frequency range, and that's why it's one of the studio favorites.

I use a Shure PM588 for live stage because it takes away a lot of my low-end vocal tone. And I learned this from testing different mics. I wouldn't use it for recording vocals.

The SM58 is relatively inexpensive and you can EQ the low-end for home recordings. Keeping in mind that anytime you ADD EQ, you're also adding unwanted distortion to the recording.

BTW, I've never heard of a Cormran 952 Megatone mic.

Scratchy wrote:Mike, you didnt state which model Realistic you have, so I couldnt look up it's frequency response chart.

From my experience, The Shure SM58 is a great live vocal mic because of its frequency response.....between 100hz and 1000khz, it is quite flat, then it spikes when you get into the higher frequencies. This mic is a great stage mic because it dose not sound muddy due to it's shortage of low-end response. Compared to the SM57, which has even less low-end response, the 57 starts to flatten at 120, dips until 160hz, then flattens out to 1200khz. The 57 would be a better stage mic for someone with a higher singing range, like a female singer. I have seen plenty of male singers use the SM57 on stage, and I use them on tom-toms and cymbals but I've never seen one used to record vocals with.

When we get into the high-priced mics, like the Neuman U87, we are looking at a frequency response that starts to get flat at 50hz and stays flat all the way out to 5Khz. That is an awesome frequency range, and that's why it's one of the studio favorites.

I use a Shure PM588 for live stage because it takes away a lot of my low-end vocal tone. And I learned this from testing different mics. I wouldn't use it for recording vocals.

The SM58 is relatively inexpensive and you can EQ the low-end for home recordings. Keeping in mind that anytime you ADD EQ, you're also adding unwanted distortion to the recording.

BTW, I've never heard of a Cormran 952 Megatone mic.

Realistic Highball Unidirectional Dynamic Microphone 33-984b

Apparently, a ten dollar Radio Shack mic.

The sensitivity level of most inexpensive mics is usually low. Your Realistic Unidirectional Dynamic Mic has a sensitivity of -74db +/- 3db. That's pretty low compared to the SM58's -54.5 and the SM57's -56. The U87 can take sound pressure levels up to 127 dB without distorting.

"A high sensitivity microphone creates more voltage and so needs less amplification at the mixer or recording device"

Translated, this means less clipping and less distortion when you record.

The frequency response for your mic is close to the SM57, but it looks like it will clip very easily in the high frequencies.

The reason you might not like your voice with this mic is a combination of the clipping (compression of the signal, especially when you belt out a song), and the distortion from having to give it more gain at the mixer.