x
anonymous 30 March 2009

I think I'm a baritone and I hope the tone is more thick than thin. Ideally it would be as thick as Elvis. But, I want to sound as much like Elvis or Jim Morrison as possible.

what mic would be good?

my condenser sounds way too bright for me on the loud stuff when I have to step back from the mic. I like that thundering boom that Elvis could do.

Comments

anonymous Tue, 03/31/2009 - 10:07

Link555 wrote: Morrison used a U47

crap! I can't spend that money. I also read that Aaron Lewis of Staind uses that too. I think I have that same vocal range as these people:
Aaron Lewis, Elvis, Morrison... these are all baritones right?

I've been considering the sm7 - which they say was used by Metallica,U2,Icubus and Michael Jackson(tenors I believe) so is the sm7 the wrong mic for baritones?

Guitarfreak Tue, 03/31/2009 - 12:23

stupidfatandugly wrote: I've been considering the sm7 - which they say was used by Metallica,U2,Icubus and Michael Jackson(tenors I believe) so is the sm7 the wrong mic for baritones?

None of these artists really have deep voices. My Engineer used a tube mic on this one artist that came in and it sounded great. He was a bass, kind of like a Barry White sounding bass. I think tube or ribbon would be the way to go but I don't know any particulars.

TheJackAttack Tue, 03/31/2009 - 12:29

You need to learn to work the mic. Learn about proximity affect and utilize it or not as an artistic decision. A mic can only send down the line what you put into it intentionally or unintentionally. If you can't sound at least decent on a SM58 then there isn't any point spending money on a ribbon or tube. Solution, hook up the mic to a PA rig and just start experimenting.

anonymous Tue, 03/31/2009 - 15:37

for the loud stuff it is sounding better on my sm57 than it does on the baby bottle. but the sm57 isn't designed for vocals. my room is 7x11' small so I want to take more of the room sound out.

I can't yell into the baby bottle and everybody is telling me the sm7 is the one for the job. However, they say, you have to get a mic that fits your range(tenor,baritone, etc.) and your tone(thick like Elvis or thin like Bob Marley)

I think I'm a baritone and more thick than thin. PLus I like the fat sound best. In light of that, sm7?

lostindundee Sun, 04/05/2009 - 07:12

stupidfatandugly wrote: [quote=Guitarfreak]It probably is, I meant it more for lolz.

son of a! I bought that

I'm definitely shure (no pun intended) that I read this was the same as the SM58. However, the frequency response graph on the shure website indicate otherwise but then I'm not sure on what affects this - different caseing perhaps?

Having said that, I wouldn't say that you've thrown your money away getting the 55sh. Far from it in fact. I think you'll be happy with this mic. Let us know what you think of it.

LiD

JoeH Sun, 04/05/2009 - 10:41

I think we've gotten way off the original question/point here, and soooo much information flying around.

Let's be clear about this; the original (early 50's) Shure 55 microphone was a different beast than the reissue currently being sold by Shure, although both are DYNAMIC mics (Not ribbon or Condensers).

It's also worth pointing out that this was primarily a LIVE microphone, not a studio mic. Elvis (and many others) used it because it was what was available at the time, it worked well, looked great, and was easy for anyone to figure out simply by stepping in front of it and singing.

Here's the original 1951 spec sheet from Shure for the 55:

http://images.mixonline.com/files/141/shure-55.pdf

Here is the reissue from Shure for the SM55SH Series II spec sheet:

http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Products/WiredMicrophones/us_pro_55SHSeriesII_content

I own a restored original 55. It's got a similar element to all of the SM series, but it's in a suspended basket/shock mount, and has the three position impedance switch in the back for H/M/L. To my ears, its' a lot more interesting, open, and flexible than an SM58. (I still wouldn't use it for any serious vocal recording, however.)

Live onstage, Elvis was often pictured in front of a Shure 55 microphone, as in this classic early shot here from the Scotty More archives. (It would be years and years later that Shure reissued this mic as the SM55SH Series II):

http://www.scottymoore.net/images/lakeland/Elvis_on_stage.jpg

If you can't access that one from this server, try this one:

http://www.elvisinfonet.com/image-files/elvis_miami_1956.jpg

Live onstage was ONE thing, the studio was another.

In the studio (and sometimes even onstage in the early days), Elvis was an RCA Victor recording artist his entire career, and it's likely (But I don't know this for "sure" - no pun intended) that he was tracked almost exclusively with RCA 77 series Ribbon mics, as pictured here:

http://www.retroplanet.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/26986.jpg

and here's Elvis with another RCA Ribbon mic, alledgedly an early Sun session:

http://www.fpepreview.com/images%20090208/24-741%20elvis%20studio.jpg

I don't think Elvis was ever recorded with the usual Neumann U47s, 67's and 87's; they may not have let him, if it was all RCA Studio recording.

The most important thing to remember is that it's not the MIC per se that makes a good singer, it only captures good singing. (Garbage in, Garbage out.) A mic that's faithful to what is going on in front of it (coupled with a good preamp) is really all you can do. The rest is up to you. You don't necessarily need a Shure or an RCA or a Neumann right now, there are so many others out there, it's hardly worth beating yourself up over.

They are nice tools to have, and they (might) remove a few more variables someday, when you can afford one, or hire a studio that already has 'em.

x

User login