Isaac Adni, post: 438324, member: 49847 wrote: although I'd also like to be able to use that same mic in the future as a drum overhead (and obviously I wouldn't be able to do that with a dynamic mic).

"Obviously"?
Where did you get that information? Hundreds of hit records have been recorded using dynamic mics as drum overheads... ribbons, too.

The SM7B is a great dynamic mic, an industry standard go-to... but you'll need a beefy pre - one that has enough gain to get it up to its optimum levels, because it's a lower output mic than condensers ( and some other dynamics).

If you do go that route, look for a pre that will provide at least 60db of gain, and preferably more.

65 - 70db is optimal.

I have both the NT-1A and the NT-2A, the NT2-A is definitely a step up from the NT1-A, and the NT1 for that matter if your budget allows.

Having said that, if your environment is untreated you would be better off going for a dynamic like the Shure SM-57 or SM-58 which will still perform but will be much more forgiving under those conditions.

You could pick up a pair for less than an NT-1 (actually, you could pick up 2 SM-58's and an SM-57 for around the price of an NT-1) and have a really good start to your mic locker. Then you would have yourself some good versatile mics for many applications, from recording vocals, recording instruments, a pair of overheads and thats not to mention their live applications for gigging if thats your thing.

They are found in just about every studio in the world and they are basically indestructable....(Go on DonnyThompson,...tell the lawnmower story again, you know you want too...I want to hear it again...lol ;))

IMHO.

DonnyThompson, post: 438326, member: 46114 wrote: "Obviously"?
Where did you get that information? Hundreds of hit records have been recorded using dynamic mics as drum overheads... ribbons, too.

The SM7B is a great dynamic mic, an industry standard go-to... but you'll need a beefy pre - one that has enough gain to get it up to its optimum levels, because it's a lower output mic than condensers ( and some other dynamics).

If you do go that route, look for a pre that will provide at least 60db of gain, and preferably more.

65 - 70db is optimal.

Aww crap - I've just bought the Focsrite 18i8 and I think that has a maximum of 55db of gain...
I don't really think that there's an audio interface at a comparable price that could do 60+ db :( but I guess I could always use an external preamp

Obviously the internet was lying to me over dynamic mics only picking up what's close to them so thanks for clearing that up.

Sean G, post: 438330, member: 49362 wrote: I have both the NT-1A and the NT-2A, the NT2-A is definitely a step up from the NT1-A, and the NT1 for that matter if your budget allows.

Are you sure the NT2-A is a step up from the NT1? I was talking about the new 2014 NT1 rather than the old NT1.

Isaac Adni, post: 438332, member: 49847 wrote: Are you sure the NT2-A is a step up from the NT1? I was talking about the new 2014 NT1 rather than the old NT1.

My bad...I did mean the Nt1-a not the NT1

Isaac Adni, post: 438332, member: 49847 wrote: Obviously the internet was lying to me over dynamic mics only picking up what's close to them so thanks for clearing that up.

What ????.....and here I am thinking that things I read must be true if its on the internet....

Oh the humanity !!...

Who would tell such scurrilous lies !!!! ;) {firmly plants tongue in cheek}

isaac Adni

After you hear DonnyThompson 's tale of the lost SM-57 you will want to go buy one....

The thing is like the Terminator of mics...you just can't kill 'em

http://recording.org/threads/cant-get-blue-icicle-to-work.58962/#post-432688

DonnyThompson, post: 438326, member: 46114 wrote:
The SM7B is a great dynamic mic, an industry standard go-to... but you'll need a beefy pre - one that has enough gain to get it up to its optimum levels, because it's a lower output mic than condensers ( and some other dynamics).

If you do go that route, look for a pre that will provide at least 60db of gain, and preferably more.

65 - 70db is optimal.

Am I right in saying that I won't therefore be able to record with it using my Focusrite 18i8? Focusrite don't actually seem to list the amount of gain on that box. Or should I just head down to my local recording store and test it out?

Your Focusrite should provide 60db of gain. That's the bare essentials for the SM7.

You could always add this to your Focusrite to up the gain:

http://www.cathedralpipes.com/zen-cart/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=208

You should certainly have at least one SM57 in your mic locker, and there may be other dynamic mics that you could consider in addition.

As an example, the Beyer M88 is another classic. It has nearly twice the output of an SM57/58, and this may give better results when instrument miking using a Scarlett 18i8 (which has 60dB of gain available on its mic inputs, BTW). The M88 has a hypercardioid rather than a cardioid pick-up pattern, so for live use would need different positioning relative to stage monitors compared with cardioid patterns, but can give help in difficult home acoustic environments.

Other contributers to these forums also have their own favourite dynamic microphones, including ADK, Sennheiser, Audix and Electrovoice. My Electrovoice RE20 gets a lot of use, particularly where I want to avoid bass boost due to proximity effect.

i'm with Boswell on this. i would go a step further and say get a few. they're great for oh's / hats / kick's / snare & toms / amps. anything between 50 and 15 k hZ. a 58 would work better for vocals.

Kurt Foster, post: 438346, member: 7836 wrote: 58 would work better for vocals.

If you can only have one or two like me, I went w the 57s. 58 may have a slight edge in the vocals, but I've always disliked the 58 on distorted electric guitars al lot less, they get hollow in the upper mid, but that peak is what helps them sound good w vocals. So I've always felt it was less compromise overall, to give up a little in the vocal, get something I like on a broader range. The differences are subtle in genral, imho.

My first mic was an sm 48 that came w my porta studio. I lent it to a friend and he destroyed it at the end of his bands set ala' grunge style. At least he replaced it, albeit w a peavy PV1 w a busted windscreen, lol a survivor from a previous gig of his. Lol the Pv worked fine for years, until it eventually got misplaced.

Dynamic mics are generally much more forgiving physically and sonically.

I would rather a good dynamic, then a cheap condenser. Just my humble opinion.

Sean G, post: 438330, member: 49362 wrote:
if your environment is untreated you would be better off going for a dynamic

Is this because:
a) people can generally get closer to dynamic mics, decreasing the signal to noise ratio
b) dynamic mics generally have a narrower pickup pattern

And therefore when using dynamic mics as drum overheads the background noise will not in fact be reduced vs a condenser with the same pickup pattern?

Dynamic mics are tend to be less sensitive to room noise as opposed to condensers, they have in most cases an omni-directional, uni-directional or cardioid polar pattern. Dynamics are ideal for a wide range of sound pressure levels (SPL) which makes them very versatile.

Condensers by design of and placement of the capsule tend to be more sensitive, generally require phantom power (either 12, 24 or 48 V) to operate their live circuitry and also polarise their transducer element.

The diaphragms between the two differ in that dynamics have a rigid diaphragm and coil design whereas condensers have a very thin flexible diaphragm placed close to a metal plate, which makes condensers very sensitive to distant sounds and high frequencies.

Typical mic polar patterns as viewed from above

Sean G, post: 438358, member: 49362 wrote: Dynamic mics are tend to be less sensitive to room noise as opposed to condensers, they have in most cases an omni-directional, uni-directional or cardioid polar pattern. Dynamics are ideal for a wide range of sound pressure levels (SPL) which makes them very versatile.

Condensers by design of and placement of the capsule tend to be more sensitive, generally require phantom power (either 12, 24 or 48 V) to operate their live circuitry and also polarise their transducer element.

The diaphragms between the two differ in that dynamics have a rigid diaphragm and coil design whereas condensers have a very thin flexible diaphragm placed close to a metal plate, which makes condensers very sensitive to distant sounds and high frequencies.

Typical mic polar patterns as viewed from above

So in a dynamic mic, the capsule is further forward, increasing the signal to background noise ratio, and therefore decreasing background noise? Or are dynamics just insensitive to quiet sounds due to their design?

Isaac Adni, post: 438357, member: 49847 wrote: And therefore when using dynamic mics as drum overheads the background noise will not in fact be reduced vs a condenser with the same pickup pattern?

IMO, Dynamic mics in their design of both the capsule and diaphragm and how and where both sit in the microphones overall design and construction has more of an effect in reducing the background noise when used as drum overhead mics.

Sean G, post: 438361, member: 49362 wrote: IMO, Dynamic mics in their design of both the capsule and diaphragm and how and where both sit in the microphones overall design and construction has more of an effect in reducing the background noise when used as drum overhead mics.

Or when used as any type of mic...

Isaac Adni, post: 438360, member: 49847 wrote: So in a dynamic mic, the capsule is further forward, increasing the signal to background noise ratio, and therefore decreasing background noise? Or are dynamics just insensitive to quiet sounds due to their design?

I think you will find that this has more to do with the rigid design of the capsule of a dynamic microphone.

A typical dynamic microphone has a smaller capsule, whereas a typical large diaphragm condenser microphone has a much larger capsule.

Isaac Adni, post: 438362, member: 49847 wrote: Or when used as any type of mic...

(y)

http://shure.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/742/~/difference-between-a-dynamic-and-condenser-microphone

DonnyThompson, post: 438365, member: 46114 wrote: http://shure.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/742/~/difference-between-a-dynamic-and-condenser-microphone

It seems to me, from that and other sources, that I should actually get a condenser microphone, as I will never be using the mic for live applications, and I need the high end response for my soft pop vocals. Am I right, that for my use, a condenser will be better?

You would need to balance how well a microphone captures your voice against how well it rejects the reflections from your untreated room. It's usually easier at the mix stage to tame problems in the vocals than it is to do anything at all with unwanted reflections.

Shure SM58, SM-7, EV RE-20, Sennheiser MD421; how much money do you want to spend?

rmburrow, post: 438400, member: 46233 wrote: Shure SM58, SM-7, EV RE-20, Sennheiser MD421; how much money do you want to spend?

+1 on the shure(s)

Isaac Adni, post: 438369, member: 49847 wrote: It seems to me, from that and other sources, that I should actually get a condenser microphone, as I will never be using the mic for live applications, and I need the high end response for my soft pop vocals. Am I right, that for my use, a condenser will be better?

Almost certainly yes. An "LDC" (large condensor) to be precise. And there are very good ones in your price range.

PS: any reason you can't treat the room a bit (making that an absolute yes beyond any reasonable doubt)? "Treating" a room doesn't have to involve a ton of money or effort.

Because of its sensitivity, a condenser will tend to pick up more of the environment that it's in - moreso than a cardioid dynamic.

Something like a Shure SM7 would be a good choice for an untreated room; although dynamic mics - especially the SM7 in particular - will also require a lot more gain for the mic to work at its optimum - more than a condenser does, so you'd need a pre amp with a beefy amount of available gain; 60db minimum, but better with 65-70db. You can also add an inline gain boost ( transformer) like the Cathedral Pipes Durham, or the Cloudlifter to an existing preamp that may be shy on gain. These inline devices work by taking the 48v normally required for a condenser, and converting it into additional input gain.

Depending on the model, a condenser will be more sensitive to nuances - which is good for things like vocals and acoustic instruments - but ... it will also pick up more of the room than a typical dynamic will - as mentioned, if you've decided on a condenser mic, you may want to consider doing some acoustic treatment in your recording space, particularly in the upper mids and highs.

joey2000, post: 439824, member: 49915 wrote: Almost certainly yes. An "LDC" (large condensor) to be precise. And there are very good ones in your price range.

PS: any reason you can't treat the room a bit (making that an absolute yes beyond any reasonable doubt)? "Treating" a room doesn't have to involve a ton of money or effort.

I humbly disagree. Low prices LDCs are in general harsh. And treating a room is usually time consuming and fairly expensive, especially relative to a budget condenser mics cost.

Care to elaborate on your statement?

My favourite drum overhead is the dynamic Beyer M201, a hypercardioid.

Never, ever, believe anything told to you as a rule about microphones. It could be good common sense guidance and honest opinion, but you should always try everything for yourself. I've got some cheap SDC mics - side fire, Chinese, in a polycarbonate case, and just discovered the harshness that they have to a small degree makes them really good on toms - I thought they'd overload and sound horrible, but they really don't.

I hate absolute rules - make your own!

kmetal, post: 439849, member: 37533 wrote: I humbly disagree. Low prices LDCs are in general harsh.

There are a great many users of (for example) the Rode NT1 who would disagree. To each their own.

And treating a room is usually time consuming and fairly expensive,

Because? "Treating a room" is a broad term; some basic stuff would not take that much time or money. I'm not saying turn it into a professional studio.

paulears, post: 439878, member: 47782 wrote:
Never, ever, believe anything told to you as a rule about microphones. It could be good common sense guidance and honest opinion, but you should always try everything for yourself.

That's at the very least a good rule of thumb. The problem is most places aren't set up to try out diff mics in various ways...

joey2000, post: 440219, member: 49915 wrote: There are a great many users of (for example) the Rode NT1 who would disagree. To each their own.

Because? "Treating a room" is a broad term; some basic stuff would not take that much time or money. I'm not saying turn it into a professional studio.

Rode is one of the worst offenders of harsh midrange. Any of these 'great many' users have any 'great recordings' of note? You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still stinks. There is nothing smooth about Rode mics, even the ones that sound good. Beyond that the nt1a is far more commonly used and worse than the already questionable nt1.

"Basic stuff" still isn't cheap. A basic set of first reflection panels, and a couple bass traps is easily $500-1k if you make them yourself. That's the cost of 5-10 budget LDCs.

joey2000, post: 440219, member: 49915 wrote: There are a great many users of (for example) the Rode NT1 who would disagree.

Name one

Unlike more expensive mics, I think the problem with Rode is their consistency... and I can't say exactly why, but I've heard original NT1's ( the "black" models) that sounded pretty good, yet I've heard other original models that didn't.
I did get a chance to work with a newer NT1A ( silver), and I found it to be harsh in the upper mids, with a top end that sounded brittle to me.

But there are other determining factors as well - the type and quality of mic pre, the monitors, and the room...

I don't believe that anyone is saying that you can't use a cheaper condenser - you certainly can - but a $50 AT2020 ain't gonna sound like a U87 no matter what you do to the signal.

I think all this has become academic though, as the OP hasn't posted back since May...

Sm-57 is the best budget mic ever!!! Lol

kmetal, post: 440229, member: 37533 wrote: Sm-57 is the best budget mic ever!!! Lol

I agree SM57 and SM58 will never be a bad choice for recording. There is one thing to consider tho ; The preamp should have enough gain to get a clean signal for lower volume sources like vocals and acoustic guitars..

I recently did a mic shootout with 4 mics and the 57 holded is place very well. Althought, the ISA preamp was very high to get the same volume as the others
For those having low power preamps, a condenser is a better choice even with it's disavantages. Time to go in a closet full of cloths ;)

Lol Marco this is a bad example cuz all the mics sound good!!!! I liked that t47 a lot.

I've gotta ask you about exactly why you think the 57/58 gain level is an issue? Is it pre amp noise? I've not really noticed gain being a problem w the 57, even the sm7b which is notoriously low gain, I've never had issue with. Is it noise? Is it that a basic budget interface pre wouldn't have enough gain for some sources? Is it that the gain level is too high to be out of the pre amp sweet spot? Something else??

I think you've nailed down an important point that with a little DIY you can far, far, exceed the price / performance ratio that plagues so many 'budget' mics.

The video quality is excellent btw!!! Can't wait for more. I subscribed.

kmetal, post: 440222, member: 37533 wrote: Rode is one of the worst offenders of harsh midrange.

Penalty, 15 yds for goal post move ;) You didn't say harsh midrange, you said harsh in general.

Any of these 'great many' users have any 'great recordings' of note?

Probably, but I don't have one offhand. And-? So that's the logic? If I don't have a so-called "great recording" to throw out, Rodes suck? You seriously don't think there are people out there who would take an NT1/1a over a comparably priced dynamic, in fact rightfully so because they sound better on it? Whatever....

You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still stinks.

You can call anything a pig; that doesn't make it a pig. You're entitled to your opinion, just as I am. Agree to disagree.

"Basic stuff" still isn't cheap. A basic set of first reflection panels, and a couple bass traps is easily $500-1k if you make them yourself.

I haven't gotten big into room treatments as yet, but I very seriously doubt you have to spend anywhere remotely that much, esp DIY stuff. Of course that depends how good or "professional" you want or need them to be....

kmetal, post: 440222, member: 37533 wrote: "Basic stuff" still isn't cheap. A basic set of first reflection panels, and a couple bass traps is easily $500-1k if you make them yourself.

joey2000, post: 440247, member: 49915 wrote: Of course that depends how good or "professional" you want or need them to be....

If you want them to actually perform properly and not just look the part, its going to cost you, even if you DIY.

I built 2 broadband absorbers that measure 36 inches long x 18 inches wide x 6 inches thick and they cost me over $200 in materials to construct.

I built a cloud that is suspended over my mix position using the same dimensions and that was over $100 to make.

By the time you then take into account bass traps as well to treat the low-end frequency end of the spectrum, which are bigger again and use more materials to construct, there is not much change out of $1000 to correctly treat a room, even at a DIY level.

If you don't want to take the time to treat a room correctly, you may just as well spend half that cost on overpriced foam "acoustic" tiles...but I assure you that you will be wasting your money on a band-aid solution that does not address the problem and still be left wondering why your mixes sound crap and don't translate well to other environments.

Room treatment should be one of the first considerations to take into account. Considering the cost of treating a room (even at a DIY level) is relative to the cost of a decent microphone, mic pre amp, interface or converters. Its no good having great mics, pres and the like if you are recording in a small untreated room which is nothing more than a reverb chamber if left untreated.

I'll preface this by saying I can tell Joey2000 is a kid, and I'm just having fun with this. I also reccomend he go to a pro studio sometime and try some of the gear, it may change some of his thoughts on what can be had at all price points in pro audio.

joey2000, post: 440247, member: 49915 wrote: Probably, but I don't have one offhand. And-? So that's the logic? If I don't have a so-called "great recording" to throw out, Rodes suck? You seriously don't think there are people out there who would take an NT1/1a over a comparably priced dynamic, in fact rightfully so because they sound better on it? Whatever....

But if there's so many users who disagree LDCs in the budget range are generally harsh? why can't you name any?? Does their opinion matter if there work is not noteworthy or even available for us to hear?

I think there are very few professionals using nt1a period. An sm 57/58 or re20 are the go to mics in that price range and they are dynamic. Inexperienced people just think they need a condenser, that's all. Or it's the only mic in their 'collection'. Experience people could care less about cost or type in general. They don't not use rode nt1/a cuz it's cheap, it's becuase it's not very pleasing to the ear.

I think they're are plenty of people out there who 'would take an nt1 over a similarly priced dynamic' but that's not becuase they are good at what they do, more becuase it's all they got. There's no typical professionals or experienced recordists using the rode nt1/a on a daily basis. If they were it'd be priced for professionals not college kids.

The cheapest LDC you'll see used is from AT's 40 series. The 4050, and that's $700. And almost always for female vocals.

I've read thousands and thousands of interviews from working engineers. Never did the nt1/a get mentioned.

joey2000, post: 440247, member: 49915 wrote: I haven't gotten big into room treatments as yet, but I very seriously doubt you have to spend anywhere remotely that much, esp DIY stuff. Of course that depends how good or "professional" you want or need them to be....

If you've not gotten into treatments then how is your opinion or their cost valid?

There's no alternatives to the bare minimum as far as materials go. Professionals use the cheapest stuff out there. That stuff (rigid fiberglass) just happens to cost about $2 per square foot. Plus fabric and framework. There is no 'unprofessional treatment' it's either acoustic treatment or it's not.

Acoustic treatment like Sean said, is the starting point to a studio enviornment.

Take a look at some of my work in case you have doubts of my expertise. www.triadrecording.com

Not every place has to be as expensive as those, but $1k is about what it takes for bare basic treatment in a typical spare room studio, DIY'd.