[Mike Rivers]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Oh, Shure can make better mics and they do. A lot of what the SM57/58 is,
depends on the state of the art way back when this mic first hit the market,
which was decades ago. The mic is probably an embarassment to everybody at
Shure but the accounting department. ;-)

The reason why these mics sell as well as they do is because they're a
known quantity. They aren't the best mic possible for a lot of things,
but they do very well for a lot of things. A lot of singers have learned
to use the SM58 and even those who could have any mic they wanted still
prefer the SM58 because it works for them and they don't have any
compelling need to change.

There are a lot of poorer mics out there. Thing is that there were fewer
choices when the SM57/58 mics were introduced. Today you can go through
a dozen mics (and many do) before deciding on one that's better than the
57 or 58 that you had been using. Performers know, however, that unless
they bring their own mic and their own engineer who knows how it works
with their voice or on their amplifier or snare drum, they can always
get by with the 57 or 58 that the sound company has available.

One of the serious problems with
many mics is how different they sound off-axis. In most real-world
situations two mics with very similar on-axis response, but different
directivity or different off-axis response do sound very different.

This is one of the advantages of having a large percentage of the
population be just a small number of mics. You learn about these things
if you work in the business. A singer knows which way to point a mic to
best advantage. A stage tech knows how to place an SM57 on a snare drum
so it either gets enough hi-hat or rejects enough hi-hat (depending on
the kit, the music, and the drummer's technique). Not many venue stage
techs know the directivity characteristics of dozens of mics.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
George's Pro Sound Company wrote:

after all mics are not voiced by accident

I suspect Shures are ! They simply can't make anything
better.

Oh, Shure can make better mics and they do. A lot of
what the SM57/58 is, depends on the state of the art way
back when this mic first hit the market, which was
decades ago. The mic is probably an embarassment to
everybody at Shure but the accounting department. ;-)

I rather agree. Don't they make them in Mexico now ?

Just Mexico?

True for the last SM57s I bought, but that was about 5 years back.

I would be surprised if Shure weren't selling some products produced on the
Pacific rim.

Any required 'voicing' can be be done with decent desk EQ.

Pretty much, given that the mic is reasonably flat.

Like AKG ! Or Beyer or Sennheiser or Neumann, even some
EVs !

But many offerings from those sources are quite non-flat, as well.

One thing you can't
equalize into a mic is its directivity. One of the
serious problems with many mics is how different they
sound off-axis. In most real-world situations two mics
with very similar on-axis response, but different
directivity or different off-axis response do sound very
different.

Yes, and can be a bugger with stage monitors.

....or a loud instrument near by.

One of the more ironic factoids of recent days is the fact that Shure is
essentially OEMing Countryman E6s.

Now, those are flat little microphones. Indeed at the size, they could be
little but flat, other than high pass filters.

[Geoff]

George's Pro Sound Company wrote:
and others understand that when a mic has a personality and is
properly applied that the results are fantastic
after all mics are not voiced by accident, they are engineered to have
dimension and depth when used
to ignore the attributes that are designed into a mic is ignorant,
bre ir a lat or highly tweeked freq response
to understand the tools is much better than to find one tool you like
and insist that its the only tool everyone should use

Or ignorantly imply that that one (extreme) response should be applied to
everybody.

geoff

[Geoff]

Eeyore wrote:

I rather agree. Don't they make them in Mexico now ?

I'm pretty sure that 57s and 58s (at least) have been manufactured
exclusively in Mexico for the last dozen yesrs or so...

geoff

[George's Pro Sound Company]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
George's Pro Sound Company wrote:
and others understand that when a mic has a personality and is
properly applied that the results are fantastic
after all mics are not voiced by accident, they are engineered to have
dimension and depth when used
to ignore the attributes that are designed into a mic is ignorant,
bre ir a lat or highly tweeked freq response
to understand the tools is much better than to find one tool you like
and insist that its the only tool everyone should use

Or ignorantly imply that that one (extreme) response should be applied to
everybody.

geoff

and where have I done that? please be specific instead of your usual jerk
off self
george

[liquidator[_2_]]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
George's Pro Sound Company wrote:
and others understand that when a mic has a personality and is
properly applied that the results are fantastic
after all mics are not voiced by accident, they are engineered to have
dimension and depth when used
to ignore the attributes that are designed into a mic is ignorant,
bre ir a lat or highly tweeked freq response
to understand the tools is much better than to find one tool you like
and insist that its the only tool everyone should use

Or ignorantly imply that that one (extreme) response should be applied to
everybody.

Just made yourself look pretty stupid.

All George said was every mic has a reason for sounding the way it does.

I don't always agree with George...often don't.

But you look like an idiot here.

[Eeyore]

liquidator wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
George's Pro Sound Company wrote:

and others understand that when a mic has a personality and is
properly applied that the results are fantastic
after all mics are not voiced by accident, they are engineered to have
dimension and depth when used
to ignore the attributes that are designed into a mic is ignorant,
bre ir a lat or highly tweeked freq response
to understand the tools is much better than to find one tool you like
and insist that its the only tool everyone should use

Or ignorantly imply that that one (extreme) response should be applied to
everybody.

Just made yourself look pretty stupid.

All George said was every mic has a reason for sounding the way it does.

I don't always agree with George...often don't.

But you look like an idiot here.

George's comment was not at all unreasonable. Unfortunately it has become
translated in the minds of most musos to 'the only good vocal mic is an SM58'.
Which couldn't be further from the truth.

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore wrote:

George's comment was not at all unreasonable. Unfortunately it has become
translated in the minds of most musos to 'the only good vocal mic is an SM58'.
Which couldn't be further from the truth.

That's why I keep an SM-58 with a B&K omni capsule inside it sitting around
in the studio. It comes in handy more often than you would expect.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eeyore]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

George's comment was not at all unreasonable. Unfortunately it has become
translated in the minds of most musos to 'the only good vocal mic is an SM58'.
Which couldn't be further from the truth.

That's why I keep an SM-58 with a B&K omni capsule inside it sitting around
in the studio. It comes in handy more often than you would expect.

Tempting !

Did I mention the SM48 barely looks any different but doesn't have that 7k
suck-out, plus NO TRANSFORMER.

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

George's comment was not at all unreasonable. Unfortunately it has become
translated in the minds of most musos to 'the only good vocal mic is an SM58'.
Which couldn't be further from the truth.

That's why I keep an SM-58 with a B&K omni capsule inside it sitting around
in the studio. It comes in handy more often than you would expect.

Tempting !

Did I mention the SM48 barely looks any different but doesn't have that 7k
suck-out, plus NO TRANSFORMER.

If you don't like the 7k suck-out, take the foam out of the ball of a
conventional SM-58. It's like a totally different microphone.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eeyore]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

George's comment was not at all unreasonable. Unfortunately it has become
translated in the minds of most musos to 'the only good vocal mic is an SM58'.
Which couldn't be further from the truth.

That's why I keep an SM-58 with a B&K omni capsule inside it sitting around
in the studio. It comes in handy more often than you would expect.

Tempting !

Did I mention the SM48 barely looks any different but doesn't have that 7k
suck-out, plus NO TRANSFORMER.

If you don't like the 7k suck-out, take the foam out of the ball of a
conventional SM-58. It's like a totally different microphone.

Nice tip. Thanks.

Graham

[liquidator[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


liquidator wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
George's Pro Sound Company wrote:

and others understand that when a mic has a personality and is
properly applied that the results are fantastic
after all mics are not voiced by accident, they are engineered to
have
dimension and depth when used
to ignore the attributes that are designed into a mic is ignorant,
bre ir a lat or highly tweeked freq response
to understand the tools is much better than to find one tool you
like
and insist that its the only tool everyone should use

Or ignorantly imply that that one (extreme) response should be applied
to
everybody.

Just made yourself look pretty stupid.

All George said was every mic has a reason for sounding the way it does.

I don't always agree with George...often don't.

But you look like an idiot here.

George's comment was not at all unreasonable. Unfortunately it has become
translated in the minds of most musos to 'the only good vocal mic is an
SM58'.
Which couldn't be further from the truth.

The 598 isn't my mic of choice, I'd prefer Audix...but if the talent
insists on 58's, I make sure I am paid for the hassle. there isn't any
problem making a 58 sound decent.

I don't insist on anybody using my choice.

[liquidator[_2_]]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Eeyore wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

George's comment was not at all unreasonable. Unfortunately it has
become
translated in the minds of most musos to 'the only good vocal mic is
an SM58'.
Which couldn't be further from the truth.

That's why I keep an SM-58 with a B&K omni capsule inside it sitting
around
in the studio. It comes in handy more often than you would expect.

Tempting !

Did I mention the SM48 barely looks any different but doesn't have that
7k
suck-out, plus NO TRANSFORMER.

If you don't like the 7k suck-out, take the foam out of the ball of a
conventional SM-58. It's like a totally different microphone.
--scott


It does make them sound better...used to do that back when I used them.

[Eeyore]

liquidator wrote:

The 58 isn't my mic of choice, I'd prefer Audix...but if the talent
insists on 58's, I make sure I am paid for the hassle.

We're we're not talking about TALENT. We're talking about rumour and myth. Like
me pulling The Horn's owner's leg when he said "but the SM58 is the industry
standard".

Industry standard way to get a crappy sound for sure.

Graham

[George's Pro Sound Company]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Eeyore wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

George's comment was not at all unreasonable. Unfortunately it has
become
translated in the minds of most musos to 'the only good vocal mic is an
SM58'.
Which couldn't be further from the truth.

That's why I keep an SM-58 with a B&K omni capsule inside it sitting
around
in the studio. It comes in handy more often than you would expect.

Tempting !

Did I mention the SM48 barely looks any different but doesn't have that 7k
suck-out, plus NO TRANSFORMER.

If you don't like the 7k suck-out, take the foam out of the ball of a
conventional SM-58. It's like a totally different microphone.
--scott
I started my career in live sound with sm48's
if you don't like the 58 you will HATE the 48
same nasty sound, yet much more raggedoff axis response makeing "gain before
feedback" simply a marketing phrase
the 48 is a terrible mic, and the grills don't even fit the 58
George

[Eeyore]

George's Pro Sound Company wrote:

I started my career in live sound with sm48's
if you don't like the 58 you will HATE the 48
same nasty sound, yet much more raggedoff axis response

I don't normally use mics off-axis !

makeing "gain before
feedback" simply a marketing phrase
the 48 is a terrible mic, and the grills don't even fit the 58

Thomann sells '58 grilles for £7 ea.

The '48 doesn't have the Rocky Mountains 'suck out' and it sounds far better to
my ears, plus no crappy transformer to saturate at LF due to proximity effect
and high SPL.

Graham

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:45:55 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

I started my career in live sound with sm48's
if you don't like the 58 you will HATE the 48
same nasty sound, yet much more raggedoff axis response

I don't normally use mics off-axis !

You can't HELP but use a mic off-axis unless you're a single source in
an anechoic chamber!

But off-axis pickup MAY be negligible in certain situations for a
vocalist shouting into and sucking a hand mic.

[George's Pro Sound Company]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:45:55 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

I started my career in live sound with sm48's
if you don't like the 58 you will HATE the 48
same nasty sound, yet much more raggedoff axis response

I don't normally use mics off-axis !


so you have NO sound off axis from a mic?
I find that hard to believe

[Geoff]

George's Pro Sound Company wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
George's Pro Sound Company wrote:
and others understand that when a mic has a personality and is
properly applied that the results are fantastic
after all mics are not voiced by accident, they are engineered to
have dimension and depth when used
to ignore the attributes that are designed into a mic is ignorant,
bre ir a lat or highly tweeked freq response
to understand the tools is much better than to find one tool you
like and insist that its the only tool everyone should use

Or ignorantly imply that that one (extreme) response should be
applied to everybody.

geoff

and where have I done that? please be specific instead of your usual
jerk off self

Was not referring to you - was referring to those who say that the SM58 is
the Dog's ********, and that mics without the same or similar response are
essentially crap. Which would seem to be a large number of people.

geoff

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore =damn LIAR"

The '48 doesn't have the Rocky Mountains 'suck out' and it sounds far
better to
my ears, plus no crappy transformer to saturate at LF due to proximity
effect
and high SPL.


** Blatant lie.

Even Dorsey does not believe there is any such issue with the transformer
in a SM 57/58.

The simplest test proves it too.



....... Phil

[George's Pro Sound Company]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
George's Pro Sound Company wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
George's Pro Sound Company wrote:
and others understand that when a mic has a personality and is
properly applied that the results are fantastic
after all mics are not voiced by accident, they are engineered to
have dimension and depth when used
to ignore the attributes that are designed into a mic is ignorant,
bre ir a lat or highly tweeked freq response
to understand the tools is much better than to find one tool you
like and insist that its the only tool everyone should use

Or ignorantly imply that that one (extreme) response should be
applied to everybody.

geoff

and where have I done that? please be specific instead of your usual
jerk off self

Was not referring to you - was referring to those who say that the SM58 is
the Dog's ********, and that mics without the same or similar response are
essentially crap. Which would seem to be a large number of people.

geoff

I don't have a issue with the 58, it has features that trump sound in SOME
situation
such as duribility, and yes singer comfort
I sold my om7s(12 of them) because they were refused so often

I have a good number of really crappy mics that make me a ton of money
cad 22a's with switch, thisis my go to switch mic for outdoor announcer type
jobs
behringer 8500's, these are my punk/ska/high abuse mics
a bit less muddy than a 58 and at a cost ratio of 5 to 1 compared to a 58
it's a real deal

I used ev Co4 in place of 57's they are more rugged and people dont steal
them

I have 12 behringer c-5s these are my confrence table recording mic, but I
could find a ton of uses in live sound for this really under rated gem

I also find the beta 57a a EXCELLENT mic that can do just about anything
well enough at a reasonable cost

I also have all the usual suspects in my quality kit, m88's 421/431 184's D6
201's

all in all I must own 100-120 mics
george

[Eeyore]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeysore =damn LIAR"

The '48 doesn't have the Rocky Mountains 'suck out' and it sounds far
better to my ears, plus no crappy transformer to saturate at LF due to
proximity
effect and high SPL.

** Blatant lie.

Even Dorsey does not believe there is any such issue with the transformer
in a SM 57/58.

He just said otherwise in this very thread. I see you can't read as well as
think.

Graham

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore =damn LIAR"

The '48 doesn't have the Rocky Mountains 'suck out' and it sounds far
better to my ears, plus no crappy transformer to saturate at LF due to
proximity effect and high SPL.

** Blatant lie.

Even Dorsey does not believe there is any such issue with the
transformer
in a SM 57/58.

He just said otherwise in this very thread.


** Dorsey said there was no such issue, in this thread, four days ago, in a
post DIRECTED to YOU :

" I do think the diaphragm motion will become nonlinear long before the
transformer core saturates, even at low frequencies, though."



I see you can't read as well as think.


** ROTFLMAO !!

Over and over and over and over and every day I PUBLICLY PROVE
that the Graham Stevenson ****WIT does NOT and CANNOT READ a damn thing.

The fool is sub literate,

he is utterly MANIC,

he suffers from ADHD and

he is completely AUTISTIC.

And those are his good points ....



...... Phil

[Saxology]

snip

Over and over and over and over and every day I PUBLICLY PROVE that
the Graham Stevenson ****WIT does NOT and CANNOT READ a damn thing.

The fool is sub literate,

he is utterly MANIC,

he suffers from ADHD and

he is completely AUTISTIC.

And those are his good points ....



..... Phil


testify man, testify!

[Eeyore]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeysore =damn LIAR"

The '48 doesn't have the Rocky Mountains 'suck out' and it sounds far
better to my ears, plus no crappy transformer to saturate at LF due to
proximity effect and high SPL.

** Blatant lie.

Even Dorsey does not believe there is any such issue with the
transformer in a SM 57/58.

He just said otherwise in this very thread.

** Dorsey said there was no such issue, in this thread, four days ago, in a
post DIRECTED to YOU :

" I do think the diaphragm motion will become nonlinear long before the
transformer core saturates, even at low frequencies, though."

But he did say it's a crappy transformer. Which was my point.

Graham

[Phil Allison]

"Eeyore"
Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeysore =damn LIAR"

The '48 doesn't have the Rocky Mountains 'suck out' and it sounds
far
better to my ears, plus no crappy transformer to saturate at LF due
to
proximity effect and high SPL.

** Blatant lie.

Even Dorsey does not believe there is any such issue with the
transformer in a SM 57/58.

He just said otherwise in this very thread.

** Dorsey said there was no such issue, in this thread, four days ago,
in a
post DIRECTED to YOU :

" I do think the diaphragm motion will become nonlinear long before the
transformer core saturates, even at low frequencies, though."

But he did say it's a crappy transformer. Which was my point.



** It was never you ****ing point.

You are going INSANE - Graham

Get help or you will end up in a mental hospital.




...... Phil

[Eeyore]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeyore"
Phil Allison wrote:
"Eeysore =damn LIAR"

The '48 doesn't have the Rocky Mountains 'suck out' and it sounds
far better to my ears, plus no crappy transformer to saturate at LF
due
to proximity effect and high SPL.

** Blatant lie.

Even Dorsey does not believe there is any such issue with the
transformer in a SM 57/58.

He just said otherwise in this very thread.

** Dorsey said there was no such issue, in this thread, four days ago,
in a post DIRECTED to YOU :

" I do think the diaphragm motion will become nonlinear long before the
transformer core saturates, even at low frequencies, though."

But he did say it's a crappy transformer. Which was my point.

** It was never you ****ing point.

You are going INSANE - Graham

Get help or you will end up in a mental hospital.

Yeah sure. When was YOUR last visit ?

Graham

[liquidator[_2_]]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
George's Pro Sound Company wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
George's Pro Sound Company wrote:
and others understand that when a mic has a personality and is
properly applied that the results are fantastic
after all mics are not voiced by accident, they are engineered to
have dimension and depth when used
to ignore the attributes that are designed into a mic is ignorant,
bre ir a lat or highly tweeked freq response
to understand the tools is much better than to find one tool you
like and insist that its the only tool everyone should use

Or ignorantly imply that that one (extreme) response should be
applied to everybody.

geoff

and where have I done that? please be specific instead of your usual
jerk off self

Was not referring to you - was referring to those who say that the SM58 is
the Dog's ********, and that mics without the same or similar response are
essentially crap. Which would seem to be a large number of people.

geoff



Misunderstood, then. Text is a bit clumsy sometimes.

In this case all was not as it appeared. Sincere apologies. You are a
rational human after all, nice to know.

[jakdedert]

Eeyore wrote:

geoff wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
.
In fact there's a little known SM47 that has no transformer. It looks
virtually identical to the 57 and to my ears sounds so much sweeter.
Does it have the same 32Rish voicecoil as the 57 ?

Sorry, mistake on my part. I meant SM48 vs SM58.

You know how the SM58 has that grrreat dip around 7kHz ? Totally absent
from the 48 !

Check out the Shure website and get the expanded freq resp graphs. I'd post
the links myself, but I'm a bit busy right now.

It would be nice if they did an equivalent '47 too in fact. The SM48 model
is significantly less expensive and looks almost identical. Mere detail
differences. And it sounds so much cleaner, no transformer you see, and
flatter (if you can call it that !) response.

Graham

You get what you pay for. 'Your' SM48 may sound peachy-keen; but put a
series of them together and you'll find that no two sound alike...some
will probably be radically different.

It's a bargain mic. The money you save would have been spent on quality
control.

jak

[jakdedert]

Eeyore wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I once took over a mix where almost literally ALL the frequencies had been cut
to the max by the house engineer !
I've seen systems where the main eq has been "locked down" by someone
who thought gbf was the only criterion, then every channel on board
eq/d in an exact opposite when someone with ears tried to get the mics
sounding good again.

LMFAO !

The less EQ the better IME and IMHO. It just sounds so natural in comparison. Oh,
memories. I even recall one late 70's rock band (can't remember the name now though
but the gig was at Hemel Hempstead Pavilion) we did who were so impressed they
insisted the entire crew join them in their dressing room for drinkies. They said
quite literally "we've never heard a sound that good before" !

Graham


Was that before or after the trucks were loaded....?

jak

[Eeyore]

jakdedert wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
geoff wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
.
In fact there's a little known SM47 that has no transformer. It looks
virtually identical to the 57 and to my ears sounds so much sweeter.
Does it have the same 32Rish voicecoil as the 57 ?

Sorry, mistake on my part. I meant SM48 vs SM58.

You know how the SM58 has that grrreat dip around 7kHz ? Totally absent
from the 48 !

Check out the Shure website and get the expanded freq resp graphs. I'd post
the links myself, but I'm a bit busy right now.

It would be nice if they did an equivalent '47 too in fact. The SM48 model
is significantly less expensive and looks almost identical. Mere detail
differences. And it sounds so much cleaner, no transformer you see, and
flatter (if you can call it that !) response.


You get what you pay for. 'Your' SM48 may sound peachy-keen; but put a
series of them together and you'll find that no two sound alike...some
will probably be radically different.

Never had that problem with AKGs. Shure is obviously a **** brand with no Q/C.


It's a bargain mic. The money you save would have been spent on quality
control.

The quality of my system was such that I got repeat upon repeat gig. FACT. ****
you.

Graham

[Eeyore]

jakdedert wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

I once took over a mix where almost literally ALL the frequencies had been cut
to the max by the house engineer !
I've seen systems where the main eq has been "locked down" by someone
who thought gbf was the only criterion, then every channel on board
eq/d in an exact opposite when someone with ears tried to get the mics
sounding good again.

LMFAO !

The less EQ the better IME and IMHO. It just sounds so natural in comparison. Oh,
memories. I even recall one late 70's rock band (can't remember the name now though
but the gig was at Hemel Hempstead Pavilion) we did who were so impressed they
insisted the entire crew join them in their dressing room for drinkies. They said
quite literally "we've never heard a sound that good before" !

Was that before or after the trucks were loaded....?

WHAT KIND OF *MORON* ARE YOU ?

[jakdedert]

Eeyore wrote:

jakdedert wrote:

snip one fairly reasonable discussion

It's a bargain mic. The money you save would have been spent on quality
control.

The quality of my system was such that I got repeat upon repeat gig. FACT. ****
you.


Excuse me? Just what did I say to elicit *that* response?

Try the decaf....

jak
Graham

[jakdedert]

Eeyore wrote:

jakdedert wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

I once took over a mix where almost literally ALL the frequencies had been cut
to the max by the house engineer !
I've seen systems where the main eq has been "locked down" by someone
who thought gbf was the only criterion, then every channel on board
eq/d in an exact opposite when someone with ears tried to get the mics
sounding good again.
LMFAO !

The less EQ the better IME and IMHO. It just sounds so natural in comparison. Oh,
memories. I even recall one late 70's rock band (can't remember the name now though
but the gig was at Hemel Hempstead Pavilion) we did who were so impressed they
insisted the entire crew join them in their dressing room for drinkies. They said
quite literally "we've never heard a sound that good before" !
Was that before or after the trucks were loaded....?

WHAT KIND OF *MORON* ARE YOU ?


It was a joke, Graham.....

Hello?

jak

[hank alrich]

jakdedert wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

jakdedert wrote:

The less EQ the better IME and IMHO. It just sounds so natural in
comparison. Oh, memories. I even recall one late 70's rock band (can't
remember the name now though but the gig was at Hemel Hempstead
Pavilion) we did who were so impressed they insisted the entire crew
join them in their dressing room for drinkies. They said quite
literally "we've never heard a sound that good before" !

Was that before or after the trucks were loaded....?

WHAT KIND OF *MORON* ARE YOU ?

It was a joke, Graham.....

Hello?


Now, don't go tryin' to joke around with Graham or he'll go crackers on
ya. He is very serious about who he used to be.

Who the hell says they got invited into a dressing room for "drinkies"?
Are those Twinkies with a shot in 'em? Aaaah, the nutritional potential
boggles the remainder of the mind!

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

jakdedert wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

jakdedert wrote:

snip one fairly reasonable discussion

It's a bargain mic. The money you save would have been spent on quality
control.

The quality of my system was such that I got repeat upon repeat gig.
FACT. **** you.


Excuse me? Just what did I say to elicit *that* response?

Try the decaf....

Or lay off the booze when posting.

There are regional guys hereabouts who are the worst sound cats I've
ever had the misfortune to find at the console while I was on stage.
They get repeat business, for years, because they are the cheapest
sumbitches you can imagine.

That may or may not be relevant here. Determination of that is for those
above my pay scale.

I'll say this: I'd not hire Graham to run FOH. He is too volatile. Were
he able to muster a creative and cogent flame I could reconsider. But
that hasn't happened so far.

OTOH, maybe he hasn't gotten laid in decades and is engaging in wishful
thinking.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[George's Pro Sound Company]

"jakdedert" wrote in message
. ..
Eeyore wrote:

jakdedert wrote:

snip one fairly reasonable discussion

It's a bargain mic. The money you save would have been spent on quality
control.

The quality of my system was such that I got repeat upon repeat gig.
FACT. ****
you.


Excuse me? Just what did I say to elicit *that* response?

Try the decaf....

jak
Graham

I find just one correlation between mic choice and continued success as a
sound provider
a better mic makes "my"job easier, butclients seem rather indifferent,
except the ones that demand a 58
so I guess the only correlation would be if you can't supply and work with
a 58 you will get less work and be less sucessful
George

[Eric B]

The greatest difference between the 58 and the beta version is that
the beta use neodymnium magnet structures which means they are hotter.
To my ear they are also brighter. Their polar pick up is about as
bizarre as the old 58. The 57 and 58 use the same motor but the 58 has
a ball windscreen. I think this is also true of the betas. The
greatest reason to keep the 58s in your mic tool kit is that every
live singer in the world knows them. They may say, oh, boy, sigh, a
58, but they know it. The 58 is a standard microphone, like in the US
Dunkin Donuts is a standard coffee- certainly not the best, but you
know what you are getting. I did live sound last night in an open mic
situation and the 58 was the mic most people chose. I did use better
mics on acoustic instruments.
One mic to widen your mic collection and to look good in the Tech
listing on the website. Get a Neuman KSM401. The main reason, the
reason the owner will spring for it, is that it will look good in the
Tech Spec listing. It will enhance the star like egos of the
performers and therefore their performance. The owner will sell more
drinks...
In Europe Beyer M69, M88, M500 and M201 are all improvements over
the 58. They have probably changed some of the names by now for new
product. These all have hypercardioid pickup patterns and all have a
more open pickup pattern than the 58. The M69 works well live, The M88
is awesome but very bassy. The M500 is a ribbon with lower sensitivity
and very well behaved bass proximity effect. This would be a very good
choice unless physical abuse is a factor. The M201 is one of my
favorite mics but they need a windscreen, and have high handling
noise. I hardly ever use them anymore.
Sennheiser/ Neumann is also a local EC brand. The MD431 was the best
live vocal mic ever made. They sell the 409 figure 8 as some other
number now. This is the one that is sort of square and not very deep
front to back. An amazing mic. They make some newer dynamic hand held
models that are not bad at all. I'm sorry, I don't know the models.
So far all the models mentioned (except the Neuman KSM401) are
dynamic. Despite being more delicate and needing to be powered,
condenser mics are often categorically better for almost every
application presuming your mixer can handle the hotter signal. You
have an A+H. It can.
If you want to contact me off group you can...
Best regards,
Eric Blackmer
PS. In my experience no AKG mics, regardless, are flat. Some models,
especially their condensers, sound really... 'nice'. The C 451 is
cool, there is a vocal mic version C535, that is killer. Their
dynamics are pretty good. They usually had very workable bass roll off
filters on board to compensate for the proximity effect. The best of
these bass filters was in the Sennheiser MD421, 431, 441.

[liquidator[_2_]]

"Eric B" wrote in message
...
The 58 is a standard microphone, like in the US
Dunkin Donuts is a standard coffee- certainly not the best, but you
know what you are getting.

Odd- never heard that And I'm a pretty heavy coffe drinker.

Around here White Castle is pretty much the standard.

Won't eat the burgers, I can tolerate the fish sandwich...but have had
probably thousands of gallons of that coffee...


There are Dinkin' Donuts areound here, but not the place of choice.

The last ten years, lots more competition in late night coffee...Tim
Horton's has grabbed a chunk...but White Castle is still number one.


Don't think they have WC's all over the US though, and I suspect there are
Dunkin' Donuts all over.

[George's Pro Sound Company]

"liquidator" wrote in message
...

"Eric B" wrote in message
...
The 58 is a standard microphone, like in the US
Dunkin Donuts is a standard coffee- certainly not the best, but you
know what you are getting.

Odd- never heard that And I'm a pretty heavy coffe drinker.

Around here White Castle is pretty much the standard.

Won't eat the burgers, I can tolerate the fish sandwich...but have had
probably thousands of gallons of that coffee...


There are Dinkin' Donuts areound here, but not the place of choice.

The last ten years, lots more competition in late night coffee...Tim
Horton's has grabbed a chunk...but White Castle is still number one.



I have never seen a open WC in Ny
there ae some former WC buildings but as long a I have been around they
have other businesses in them
G
Don't think they have WC's all over the US though, and I suspect there are
Dunkin' Donuts all over.