RODE M1 vs. Shure SM58
Has anyone done a comparison between the RODE M1 and the Shure SM58?
No contest..........RODE M1 !!!! The 58 has "HAD IT'S DAY" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL. Acid, you are an enthusiastic fellow.
good news , because I've ordered 7 of them for my live rig and was hoping they will replace the SM58's. Last time I used a 58 was 10 years ago.
audiokid, post: 365340 wrote: good news , because I've ordered 7 of them for my live rig and was hoping they will replace the SM58's. Last time I used a 58 was 10 years ago.
Well I'll be interested in hearing your reaction. But not that interested. I've got a bunch of 58s for live use and expect them to last a long time. If I were getting a bunch of wired mics for live use they'd probably be 58s. I know the price (cheap). I know how much abuse they will take (a lot). I know where to place them relative to the monitors. I know the eq curve and how to work with it. Everyone helping with the mixing board knows the same thing. Vocalists know how to work it. I've worked with the damned things since something like 1973. Even if the M1 is "better" or I get a great deal it's going to take a lot to make it worth the change.
ACIDMAN, post: 365262 wrote: No contest..........RODE M1 !!!! The 58 has "HAD IT'S DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The 58 was introduced in 1966. It's had over 16,000 days.
I've heard of someone actually putting one in a glass of beer, drying it out and it worked. I've also heard of a few good scraps as they were used for head bonker and such lol. And that they reacted very similar with proximity to the 58 including being able to eat them. Low feedback with clarity. I hear ya though. Hard to beat the worlds most popular mic but RODE is being good to me so, its a no brainer.
I've also read that 58's are not quite what they were (older ones were made better)?. True or not, they are being compared to the M1 and every review (which I don't believe one review) say's they are the better choice between the two, today.
The sad thing to all this is I don't have any 58's anymore. I actually stopped singing with them once I found the AKG 535. I have used that for myself for years. That was 20 years back.
I kept a few around up until 10 years ago and was offered $75 each and took it. Its not been until recently did I get a new appreciation for them as a combo mic for recording electric G. There are many better mics for live IMO but the 58 is the staple and everyone knows what to expect from them.
I'm curious to know is anyone has compared the M1 for recording an electric with a Royer 121 or something like that?
If I ever get the chance to do the comparison, I'd be very upfront on what I think. No quams about saying things the way I see it.
I'll keep you all posted.
Bumping this thread to get more world comments on a Rode M1 vs Shure SM58 .
I now have those Rode M1 in the mic locker. Just before my studio closed , I tried an M1 with a Millennia M-2b on vocals and to my complete surprise, I was astonished how great it sounded.
My first thought was, wow, that's what a good preamp does for very inexpensive microphones. After hearing those two together, I would use an M1 with a M-2b for recording vocals, no problem.
I can't help but think how many threads there are about microphones coupled with cheap sounding preamp there are.I'm certain the M1 would have sounded a lot different through something else.
Has anyone tried the M1 / Royer R121 combo for micing electric guitar cabinets?
If you've done the comparison, please chime in with opinions, what micpre used and let us know! :)
audiokid, post: 449807, member: 1 wrote: My first thought was, wow, that's what a good preamp does for very inexpensive microphones.
I had the same epiphany when I bought my first ISA preamp ;)
How different is it form a sm58 (frequency Wise) ?
pcrecord, post: 449812, member: 46460 wrote: I had the same epiphany when I bought my first ISA preamp ;)
I remember reading a post from you after you got it and though, ah, Marco has been enlightened and joined the party! :D
pcrecord, post: 449812, member: 46460 wrote: How different is it form a sm58 (frequency Wise) ?
I've only ever used sm57/58 for live. We all know what they sound like which is never bad or great. They simple work, have little feedback and always cut through. But, I will be sure to report back here the first time I do a comparison between the sm58 and a M1 again. I will use the m-2b as the pre and that will be interesting.
The M1 through the millennia m-2b sounded like a good enough studio mic. It was smooth, not boomy or brittle at all. Its sounded completely accurate to the vocal. however "Note" I didn't compare it to other mics.
But standing on its own, the M1 didn't have the brittle reputation we so regularity read about RODE mics over at gearslutz, home recording, prosoundweb etc. In fact, I have quite a variety of RODE mics and I never share the opinions I read about Rode mics that are being posted on those forums. Which is my point, I think because RODE mics are affordable, they are often underrated and mostly less considered in a high end chain, likely more used by people that do not have the budget for those better mic-pres. Especially a $3800 mic pres !
Good preamps make all the difference.
audiokid, post: 449813, member: 1 wrote: Which is my point, I think because RODE mics are affordable, they are often underrated and mostly less considered in a high end chain, likely more used by people that do not have the budget for those better mic-pres. Especially a $3800 mic pres ! ;)
It's always a question of matching. Some budget mics sound good with budget pre because they are ment to do ok jobs for home studios.
Some mics will sound equally bad on budget and highend pre. Those are to be avoided...
I got my very old Studio Project out of the dust this week because I received a mod for it from microphone-parts.com.
Man this mic was sounding ok on my old mixer and budget pre when I bought it. But the tests before the mod was desastrous. Noisy and very sibilant.
After the mod (which is essentially an addition of an EQ board) the mic sound quiet and more balanced (note hyped anymore) I'll do a post on it next week ;)
Bottom line, if the M1 performs well on a good preamp, it makes it enter my ok to try list ! Thanks for the description ;)
I think it's a combo thing.
I've heard great mics sound choked and thin on cheap pres, and I've heard "common" mics like 57's absolutely shine through nice preamps.
The first time I heard an SM58 through the ADK-AP1 with the Lundhal 1538 XFO and a John Hardy 990, I was amazed. I recall thinking that I could have used that mic through that pre to track a lead vocal and I'd have been plenty happy with the results.
I've also been to home studios as a consultant, and have heard very nice mics like Neumanns, AKG's and Mojave's put through cheap, entry level preamps that totally degraded those mics.
It took me quite a while to learn that the right mic through the right preamp really does make a huge difference.
I think the first time I noticed it, was back when I was first learning the craft; I was sitting at an SSL E desk with my teacher, we were recording drum tracks, using 421's, 57's and 58's with a coincidental pair of 414's up top... I recall very clearly thinking, "ahh, so this is why my drum recordings at home don't sound like this...". Like Marco's epiphany moment with his ISA, it was a turning point for me.
DonnyThompson, post: 449816, member: 46114 wrote: The first time I heard an SM58 through the ADK-AP1 with the Lundhal 1538 XFO and a John Hardy 990, I was amazed. I recall thinking that I could have used that mic through that pre to track a lead vocal and I'd have been plenty happy with the results.
Indeed. I suspect I could record with these M1's in a poor sounding room and they would yield likely great vocals apposed to using condensers that picked up the bad room. I'm actually on a quest to find a few really nice dynamics just because I don't have the best tracking facility right now.
DonnyThompson, post: 449816, member: 46114 wrote: I think it's a combo thing.
I've heard great mics sound choked and thin on cheap pres, and I've heard "common" mics like 57's absolutely shine through nice preamps.
That's exact;y what I'm thinking here.
DonnyThompson, post: 449816, member: 46114 wrote: I've also been to home studios as a consultant, and have heard very nice mics like Neumanns, AKG's and Mojave's put through cheap, entry level preamps that totally degraded those mics.
audiokid, post: 449818, member: 1 wrote: I'm actually on a quest to find a few really nice dynamics just because I don't have the best tracking facility right now.
If you are looking for a few nice dynamic mics to add to your arsenal, my suggestion - based on experience - would be to consider an EV RE-20 (or PL-20, same mic), an SM7B, and a couple 421's. (I'm assuming you already have your fair share of 57's and 58's ;) ).
These are all mics I've used many times over the years, and I have never been disappointed with any of them, as long as they are paired with a nice, hi-gain mic pre. To me, they're kind "foolproof" in their sound(s). You pretty much know what you are going to get when you use them - unlike some FET condensers and condenser tube mics, which, as we've discussed here before, can indeed differ quite a bit, even with the same models side by side.
Senny 421's are great on rack toms, guitar amps ( even better paired with a nice ribbon ). They are also very nice on horns.
RE-20's are my personal go-to kick drum mic - has been for years ( I'm not a D112 fan) and I'll reach for them first for kick if they are available ( I own one myself but don't take it out anymore because it's old, I think it's a '75). They are also great on horns, bass amps, and yeah, even vocals, because of their Variable D design, quite nicely handling proximity effect.
The SM7B just might be my favorite dynamic mic for lead vocals... although it does require a pre with beefy gain - a minimum of 60db - because of its inherent low output ( which you'd have absolutely no problems with your Millennia!)
(For those who may be reading this, if you don't have a pre that can offer the required gain, you can always implement an inline gain booster, such as a Cloudlifter or a Cathedral Pipes Durham; both of these boosters tap the 48v Phantom Power on your preamp and convert it to additional gain, as much as +20 db)
If I'm working in a room that sounds, well, let's be kind and say " less than good", I'll reach for the SM7 most every time over a condenser - even if a very nice condenser is available - because the SM7 just sounds so good on the direct source, yet rejects so much of the "room" sound so nicely. I bet it would sound stellar through your Millennia. ;)
Though... the M1 you mentioned intrigues me as well. I'm now adding this to my list of things to research. (Thanks for making a long list even longer. :p )
I think dynamics get a bad rap; for whatever reason - whether it's simply because people have ( erroneously) been told this by someone else, or perhaps because that's what they see the most in music videos -people think that they "have" to use a condenser for most of their mic applications - particularly on lead vocals - and that's just not true. Some fantastic-sounding lead vocals have been recorded through dynamic mics.
MJ's vocals on Thriller were recorded with an SM7B.
If what I've heard is true, Bono used an SM58 for his lead vocals on U2's The Joshua Tree, and Anthony Kiedis from The Chili Peppers used an SM7 for the vocals on Blood Sugar Sex Magic.
Stevie Nicks used an RE-20 in the studio recording of Sara.
Now, to be fair, no doubt they were also using great preamps with those mics, in MJ's case, Bruce Swedien was tracking through a Harrison 32 ...a great-sounding desk, but... they he and others still used those mics all the same, and with great success.
I left one out...
The Sennheiser MD 409. ;)
This mic was sort of s "cinderella' mic because of its odd square shape and its side-address front, many people weren't quite sure what to make of this mic.
It ended up being used heavily on DSOTM, and became a sought after dynamic for vocals and guitar amps.
It has a nice smooth mid range and a tight low end.
Sennheiser stopped making the 409 several years ago, but you can still find them on eBay.
Subsequent follow-up models, such as the e609 have been disappointing in comparison to the original.
Bought one a few years back to see what they were like. I stuck it in the mic box and used it on a half a dozen live shows. I tend to use 58s, Beta 58s, 57s and Beta 57s, and SM86s as my usual mics. I found the M1 OK, but a tad more thin the the 58 - and perhaps closer to the 57s. It just didn't find a home - it didn't replace any I use all the time - in fairness it didn't do anything badly, but just didn't make me go wow. It got stolen/lost. I replaced it with another 58. It's been around quite a while now, and just doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
Excellent video comparing the Rode M1 vs. Shure SM58.
As mentioned years ago.. I have a many Rode M1 and this video is pretty much how I hear them. I find them to be very close to one and other. What I found even more compelling was how nice they sound with high quality micpre’s. Both are excellent dynamic mics.
The pin one thing is a very sensible and simple design trick, because it makes sure the ground connects first when you shove the connector in. A slow insertion speed should make it quieter on an unmuted channel - not much, of course but traditionally, things like Neutrik connectors always make pin 1 first by the design of the internal sleeve in the female connector, but with so many XLR designs out there now, adding a mm or two to the mic pin makes sure the pin 1 first thing happens all the time. The only problem is that the pin spacing and length is a standard, so altering means some connectors (possibly early Canons and Switchcrafts might not mate properly and lock?
The pin one thing is a very sensible and simple design trick, because it makes sure the ground connects first when you shove the connector in.
Cool trick indeed. I never knew that. Thank you.