Yet another clueless audio pro wannabe strikes out into the dark...
Tim
I have done the unthinkable. I have assumed that I have what it takes
to be a damn good recording studio operator, and I have set off,
under-funded, under-educated, and inexperienced.
What I DO have, is a substantial collection of quality acoustic
instruments, a building that I own, a keen skill with all things
technical, a group of talented friends who need a place to record, and
a good day job.
Before you try to talk me out of this, let me tell you that it is too
late. I have already started framing my recording space and control
room, purchased some gear that suits my modest aims, and announced to
my playmates that they can come join me in my sandbox.
What I do need is some microphone advice, and I'm desperate enough to
get skewered just for poking my head from behind the tree.
I plan to record acoustic instruments only--no drum kits, no thrashing
over-distorted guitars, just fine folk stuff, guitars, vocals,
mandolins, acoustic bass, with the occasional bluegrass set thrown in.
And, like every clueless wannabe, I plan to blow a small fortune on
cheap, over-hyped microphones before I realize the errors of my ways
and spend good money on good equipment.
From what I have been reading in the archives, I could easily pick up
a pair of Oktava MK 012's and a single MK 319, and if I'm really
lucky, be happy with my purchase for a year or two. But, would it be
enough? Do I need TWO MK 319's? Is one enough? Would I be better off
wasting my money on Chinese gear instead of on Russian gear? Should I
have my friend from St. Petersburgh make a few phone calls for me?
For your entertainment, I plan to use a Mackie 1642 VLZ into an Alesis
XT-20 ADAT with the Edit card to pump 24bit digital into my Mac
workstation. To warm things up, I have the option of running out to
1/2" tape for mastering (Otari) and I wonder if this is a good idea...
I also have buddies with Neumans and I can borrow a couple of
SM-5B's(are these any good?) from the guys in our broadcast department
if I keep on their good side.
So, if you were me, and only had $500-$600 left to spend on
microphones this year, and wanted to create CDs for
singer-songwriters, and you already have a couple of SM-58's in your
back pocket, what would you do?
Thank you for your humor, and please feel free to address any of the
subjects I raised.
Tim
P.S. I'm keeping the day job.
Jim Kollens
microphones this year, and wanted to create CDs for
singer-songwriters, and you already have a couple of SM-58's in your
back pocket, what would you do?
>>
I know what I would do; but you might not feel the same way about things. I
would save up a bit more money and buy a Microtech Gefel UM70. New about
$1,100, used about $600. It is a three-pattern condenser, large dia. and a
very classy mic. It can be used on a variety of vocal types as well as
instruments. If you change your mind about the studio, you will lose some
money but at least you will get about half what you paid for it. Those chinese
mics, gee I don't know what you'd get for those. I have microphones that cost
much more than the UM70's, but I use the UM70's all the time. Wonderful mic.
Expensive, but not nearly as expensive as other mics in it's class.
Chubby
the same class as the UM70... so while it isn't expensive as -some- of the
mics in its class, it is more expensive than other comparable mics.
-S
"Jim Kollens" <jimko...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020530190752...@mb-bh.aol.com...
Barry Blumenthal
"Tim" <timp...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:9a9b9053.0205...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> So, if you were me, and only had $500-$600 left to spend on
> microphones this year, and wanted to create CDs for
> singer-songwriters, and you already have a couple of SM-58's in your
> back pocket, what would you do?
Pack up the 58's and use them for sound reinforcement only. Buy an SM-57 or
two, used is fine. Figure $100 - $120 so far if you shop around. Buy a
pair of AT4041 small cap cardioid condensors (around $350 - $400, I think,
for the pair). This'll get you started. Make sure you take the insert outs
of your Mackie into whatever you're tracking to, so you're only using the
Mackie mic pres during tracking. Save up of your dough until you have
enough to afford a Neumann TLM103 (another $650 or so these days, new).
This is one of the best, all-around "sounds at least very good, usually
excellent, and sometimes outstanding on virtually anything," budget mics out
there. You've then got a pair of dynamic cardioids, a pair of small cap
condensors, and a large cap condensor, all with their own sounds so if you
don't like the way one sounds you've got other options.
Now.. you stated you were going to take the Mackie into an ADAT XT-20, then
into an ADAT Edit card to "pump 24bit digital into" your Mac. I don't use
ADATS or the ADATEdit card, but can you really do that? If you're using the
converters in your XT, you'll only be able to get 20 bit data, regardless of
what the Edit card will pass. I don't think the Edit card has converters
built into it, does it? You may wish to consider a different interface..
the best bang for the buck in relatively cheap 24/96 8 channel I/O seems to
be the MAudio Delta 1010... if you look around, you can find them for $535
new.
>
> Thank you for your humor, and please feel free to address any of the
> subjects I raised.
Good attitude, at least as far as I'm concerned. I'm still learning this
stuff, and have learned by years of trial and error, and endless hours
reading stuff here then experimenting based on what I've read. Keep doing
that... maybe we'll both figure this stuff out!
>
> Tim
>
> P.S. I'm keeping the day job.
You can have mine, too, if you want it...
Barry
Chubby
> built into it, does it?
The Edit card doesn't need converters... the connection is optical. It
supports 24-bit transfers. That said... the XT20's A/Ds are 20-bit, so
unless you record to the ADAT machine using seperate 24-bit A/Ds, then
20-bit is what you get from the beginning anyway.
-S
Barry Blumenthal
now. Bye.
Barry
"Chubby" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:b8zJ8.154323$Po6.3...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Chubby
" Barry Blumenthal" <muse...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8vzJ8.2537$0A.13...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
hank alrich
> Buy an SM-57 or
> two, used is fine. Figure $100 - $120 so far if you shop around.
The poster said he has a Mackie 1604 VLZ, which works very well with
some mics and does the hamster fellatio thing with SM57s, due to loading
issues between the mic output and the preamp input. Since the Shure
might like to see a nice transformer and the Mackie has none, is there
any posibility that one could select a particular Jensen mic input
transformer, put it in a little box with XLR I and O (and maybe some
simple resistor and capacitor?) loading for the transformer, and then
feed the Mackie's inputs from the transformer?
If the turns ratio were modest, there'd be a little gain from the xfrmr.
Would the source impedance of the Jensen, as seen by the Mackie, not
work well in such a config?
Comments invited.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
Carey Carlan
>
> What I DO have, is a substantial collection of quality acoustic
> instruments, a building that I own, a keen skill with all things
> technical, a group of talented friends who need a place to record, and
> a good day job.
Your most valuable asset (at least for now) is your day job.
Brian Allen
>
> The poster said he has a Mackie 1604 VLZ, which works very well with
> some mics and does the hamster fellatio thing with SM57s, due to loading
> issues between the mic output and the preamp input. Since the Shure
> might like to see a nice transformer and the Mackie has none, is there
> any posibility that one could select a particular Jensen mic input
> transformer, put it in a little box with XLR I and O (and maybe some
> simple resistor and capacitor?) loading for the transformer, and then
> feed the Mackie's inputs from the transformer?
>
eqip-upgrades at the following:
www.jensen-transformers.com/apps_sc.html
Brian
Geoff Wood
I'd get a Rode NT1000, or TLM-103, and as many SM57s as possible.
Good luck - must be nice having your own building.
geoff
"Tim" <timp...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:9a9b9053.0205...@posting.google.com...
Bob Olhsson
<timp...@mac.com> wrote:
>So, if you were me, and only had $500-$600 left to spend on
>microphones this year, and wanted to create CDs for
>singer-songwriters, and you already have a couple of SM-58's in your
>back pocket, what would you do?
Borrow the Neumanns and save up your money until you have $2000 for a
pair of new Schoepps.
--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing and Mastering
615.352.7635 FAX 615.356.2483 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they thought possible!
dwoz
>
> Esteemed gentlefolk,
>
> I have done the unthinkable. I have assumed that I have what it takes
> to be a damn good recording studio operator, and I have set off,
> under-funded, under-educated, and inexperienced.
>
> What I DO have, is a substantial collection of quality acoustic
> instruments, a building that I own, a keen skill with all things
> technical, a group of talented friends who need a place to record, and
> a good day job.
>
> Before you try to talk me out of this, let me tell you that it is too
> late. I have already started framing my recording space and control
> room, purchased some gear that suits my modest aims, and announced to
> my playmates that they can come join me in my sandbox.
oh, please. Recording music may not be as easy as falling off a log,
but it's quite a bit easier than skillful cunnilingus.
>
> What I do need is some microphone advice, and I'm desperate enough to
> get skewered just for poking my head from behind the tree.
>
> I plan to record acoustic instruments only--no drum kits, no thrashing
> over-distorted guitars, just fine folk stuff, guitars, vocals,
> mandolins, acoustic bass, with the occasional bluegrass set thrown in.
> And, like every clueless wannabe, I plan to blow a small fortune on
> cheap, over-hyped microphones before I realize the errors of my ways
> and spend good money on good equipment.
>
Here's your formula: buy two Earthworks omnis, and two Beyer M160s or
M260s. done. That gets you started. Feel free to add in a cheap
chinese condenser, just for general principle cause they're really
cheap...they may be shite compared to a Neumann, but sound comes out of
'em.
> Thank you for your humor, and please feel free to address any of the
> subjects I raised.
>
> Tim
>
> P.S. I'm keeping the day job.
--
dwoz
David Wozmak
Kurt Albershardt
>
> Here's your formula: buy two Earthworks omnis, and two Beyer M160s or
> M260s.
I'll definitely concur on the M160's (and maybe add M130's if the room
is good) with the caveat that they sound pretty awful on most cheap preamps.
I was about to suggest going into debt for a pair of Schoeps when Bob's
post came into view ;>
As a possible <$500 mic choice can I suggest a used AKG C460B with some
of Jim Williams' magic?
I haven't heard the Rode NT5 yet but it might be worth a listen.
Did I mention that I prefer small-diaphragm condensers and ribbons on
acoustic instruments?
Dan Kennedy
Hook a 10K pot, wired as a rheostat across pins 2 and 3
of a mic cable.
Plug in a 57, try it on all your favorite sources, vary
pot, find best spot, use ohmmeter to find pot's value.
Me or somebody will figure actual Mackie (somebody lend
me one?) input impedance and then calculate optimum
57 load(s).
This will at least separate the "real" part of the
loading issue out.
I can't really say anything about Mackies, having actually
only used them for a grand total of two hours.
I do hear about their bang for buck aspect, but frankly,
that's about as important to me now as $.29 macaroni and cheese.
But I did own a Tapco 6200, bought in 1974 or 5 or thereabouts,
so Greg has helped me learn too.
Transformers would be the next step in the experiment.
Dan Kennedy
Barry Blumenthal
forgot about the board.
Barry
"hank alrich" <walk...@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1fd0da8.f3k...@209-162-27-126.thegrid.net...
hank alrich
> dwoz wrote:
> > Here's your formula: buy two Earthworks omnis, and two Beyer M160s or
> > M260s.
> I'll definitely concur on the M160's (and maybe add M130's if the room
> is good) with the caveat that they sound pretty awful on most cheap preamps.
The Mackie-M160 match is made in hell. I'd figure similar entertainment
might derive from using an M130. The M260 match is nearly as bad. An
M500 works usably with a Mackie. And an SM57 into a Great River kills
all of those. All of those into a GR often slay a 57. These are my
opinions, based on kit that's here and mostly been here for years.
> I was about to suggest going into debt for a pair of Schoeps when Bob's
> post came into view ;>
Heh. I think I'd like to try, for a budget mic, the A-T 3035, based on
Ty Ford's comments.
> As a possible <$500 mic choice can I suggest a used AKG C460B with some
> of Jim Williams' magic?
> I haven't heard the Rode NT5 yet but it might be worth a listen.
> Did I mention that I prefer small-diaphragm condensers and ribbons on
> acoustic instruments?
I often find that my preferences aren't always preferable and that
things I thought I didn't prefer work better than what I thought I
preferred. I would generally agree with you. Then times arrive where a
large diaphragm slays what I thought I preferred. In the end good work
can be done with both types in most instances.
Justin Ulysses Morse
> I plan to record acoustic instruments only--no drum kits, no thrashing
> over-distorted guitars, just fine folk stuff, guitars, vocals,
> mandolins, acoustic bass, with the occasional bluegrass set thrown in.
> And, like every clueless wannabe, I plan to blow a small fortune on
> cheap, over-hyped microphones before I realize the errors of my ways
> and spend good money on good equipment.
> From what I have been reading in the archives, I could easily pick up
> a pair of Oktava MK 012's and a single MK 319, and if I'm really
> lucky, be happy with my purchase for a year or two. But, would it be
> enough? Do I need TWO MK 319's? Is one enough? Would I be better off
> wasting my money on Chinese gear instead of on Russian gear? Should I
> have my friend from St. Petersburgh make a few phone calls for me?
> So, if you were me, and only had $500-$600 left to spend on
> microphones this year, and wanted to create CDs for
> singer-songwriters, and you already have a couple of SM-58's in your
> back pocket, what would you do?
Tim,
You askedsome intelligent questions so I've got some intelligent
answers. They go against what you were planning a little bit though.
For acoustic ensembles, you will always get a better recording if you
use fewer microphones. Every mic you add diminishes the full impact of
the recording. Even if you doubt that, consider this: With a fixed
microphone budget, every microphone you add diminishes the quality of
each microphone. Think about it.
My advice to you is to blow your entire budget on one microphone. If
it's the right mic, it's all you'll need (for a while). Take your $600
and buy the best mic you can get. Record your acoustic friends with
this mic. Put them all in one room together and record them all
playing through this mic. Rather than moving faders to balance the
mix, you'll be moving musicians and instruments up and down, back and
forth. This is the absolute ideal recording arrangement. Record
overdubs with the mic in the same position in the room, still moving
musicians around.
What mic should you buy for $600? Well, your friends with the Neumann
mics probably have some other mics too you can try out and decide for
yourself what you want. Mics I'd be seriously considering if I could
only have one would be: RCA BK-5B. That's most likely what I'd go
with. It's about the most versatile and useful mic ever made. You
could also look into the TLM103, maybe a SoundDeluxe or Blue big-mouth
condenser mic, a Royer 121 if you can find one used for that kind of
green, a Neumann U-89 on a really good day, an Altec M20, maybe a Shure
SM81, an EV RE20, or whatever it is you happen to like upon listening.
ulysses
HenryShap
would suggest the following for a mic collection.
shure 57
sennheiser 421
beyer m160s and/or m260
oktava 012
If you feel the need for a large diaphram mic, one of the neumanns would be a
good place to start. A 103, or maybe or a lower cost BLUE mic. This the one
you're likeliest to replace.
I would strongly suggest getting an outboard pre. A 4 channel sytek or a couple
of symetrix sx 202s will make a world of difference. You might want to look
into an outboard A/D converter too.
You will always find a use for the above mics, even when you expand your
collection. When you get more money, Schoeps mics will cost you but will put
you in the top league. I personally love the older Schoeps 221b on upright bass
and guitar. Neumann km54 are great too.
Henry Shapiro
Pittsburgh, PA
Ben Bradley
>Esteemed gentlefolk,
>
>I have done the unthinkable. I have assumed that I have what it takes
>to be a damn good recording studio operator, and I have set off,
>under-funded, under-educated, and inexperienced.
>
>What I DO have, is a substantial collection of quality acoustic
>instruments, a building that I own, a keen skill with all things
>technical, a group of talented friends who need a place to record, and
>a good day job.
>
>Before you try to talk me out of this, let me tell you that it is too
>late. I have already started framing my recording space and control
>room,
Before you pound another nail, what are the dimensions? How did
they come about?
Not that I know a lot about acoustics, but I HAVE read Everest's
"The Master Handbook of Acoustics" and a few others, and have used
some downloaded spreadsheets to calculate room nodes for various
dimensions, and might start making my own room in a basement. I hope
you've done similar research on room sizes, acoustic isolation, etc.
>purchased some gear that suits my modest aims, and announced to
>my playmates that they can come join me in my sandbox.
>
>What I do need is some microphone advice, and I'm desperate enough to
>get skewered just for poking my head from behind the tree.
>
>I plan to record acoustic instruments only--no drum kits,
>no thrashing over-distorted guitars,
I know what you're saying, no "loud" instruments, but I somehow
feel an urge to point out the obvious, that a drum kit is an acoustic
instrument.
>just fine folk stuff, guitars, vocals,
>mandolins, acoustic bass, with the occasional bluegrass set thrown in.
>And, like every clueless wannabe, I plan to blow a small fortune on
>cheap, over-hyped microphones before I realize the errors of my ways
>and spend good money on good equipment.
Have you checked out alt.music.4-track? Over there we're the
experts in blowing small fortunes on cheap equipment.
>Thank you for your humor, and please feel free to address any of the
>subjects I raised.
>
>Tim
>
>P.S. I'm keeping the day job.
Mike Rivers
> The poster said he has a Mackie 1604 VLZ, which works very well with
> some mics and does the hamster fellatio thing with SM57s, due to loading
> issues between the mic output and the preamp input. Since the Shure
> might like to see a nice transformer and the Mackie has none, is there
> any posibility that one could select a particular Jensen mic input
> transformer, put it in a little box with XLR I and O (and maybe some
> simple resistor and capacitor?) loading for the transformer, and then
> feed the Mackie's inputs from the transformer?
Take a look on the Jensen web site. There used to be an application
note there to add a transformer to the input of the original 1604.
It's probably still there. A call to Jensen to see if that's still the
right configuration for the newer Mackie mixers is proably in order.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Ty Ford
timp...@mac.com (Tim) wrote:
>From what I have been reading in the archives, I could easily pick up
>a pair of Oktava MK 012's and a single MK 319, and if I'm really
>lucky, be happy with my purchase for a year or two. But, would it be
>enough? Do I need TWO MK 319's? Is one enough? Would I be better off
>wasting my money on Chinese gear instead of on Russian gear? Should I
>have my friend from St. Petersburgh make a few phone calls for me?
Rethink the mics. They're the weakest link in your chain.
Regards,
Ty Ford
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
WillStG
>What I DO have, is a substantial collection of quality acoustic
>instruments, a building that I own, a keen skill with all things
>technical, a group of talented friends who need a place to record, and
>a good day job.
Acoustic music, friends and a job. These are good things.
>I plan to record acoustic instruments only--no drum kits, no thrashing
>over-distorted guitars, just fine folk stuff, guitars, vocals,
>mandolins, acoustic bass, with the occasional bluegrass set thrown in.
>And, like every clueless wannabe, I plan to blow a small fortune on
>cheap, over-hyped microphones before I realize the errors of my ways
>and spend good money on good equipment.
Gotcha. Cheap and overhyped - BUT educational!
>So, if you were me, and only had $500-$600 left to spend on
>microphones this year, and wanted to create CDs for
>singer-songwriters, and you already have a couple of SM-58's in your
>back pocket, what would you do?
Not much of a budget. You have a Mackie mixer. OK, I'd get a pair of
Oktava 012's from GC (after listening to as many as you can and trying to get a
couple that sound pretty similar). They're $150 each but were on sale monday
for $75 each, maybe you can actually still get in on that deal today. If
you're lucky you got about $450 left. Then I'd maybe try a pair of those
Behringer Omnis (about $80 each) and a maybe a Marshall 67 (about $200 with
shock mount) for vocals. You could also get one of those ATM25 mic they're
blowing (as Full Compass is it?) for $99 which would work for bass and maybe
for certain voices.
So you'd have a pair of small flattish sounding condensers (MC012s), a pair
of omnis (Behringers, a bit noisy but fun to learn to do acoustic recording
with omnis) and a couple of mics you could use for vox, one of which you could
use for bass. If you don't want to play with omnis you could get 4 MC012's,
sometimes having all of the same type of mic open out there makes life easier.
Have your friends buy some cheap mics too. have fun...
Cheers,
Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Jny Vee
resistance across the mic?
and before we even get to Mr Kennedy's marvelous experimentation...
Just to be damnedannoyingly scientific about this...
QUESTIONS:
how do we know this isn;t a less-than-stellar 57?
what transformer is IN the 57?
(almost a pointless question since SHURE doesn;t
tell what changes have been made there thru the years)
Is this 57 'better' WITHOUT its internal xfrmr?
(All Warranty-Voiding-Warnings Apply)
In article <3CF6E3A6...@minn.net>, Dan Kennedy <Dken...@minn.net>
wrote:
> An experiment for someone with a Mackie:
>
> Hook a 10K pot, wired as a rheostat across pins 2 and 3
> of a mic cable.
>
> Plug in a 57, try it on all your favorite sources, vary
> pot, find best spot, use ohmmeter to find pot's value.
>
> Me or somebody will figure actual Mackie (somebody lend
> me one?) input impedance and then calculate optimum
> 57 load(s).
>
> This will at least separate the "real" part of the
> loading issue out.
...
> Transformers would be the next step in the experiment.
>
> Dan Kennedy
--
>> Help Keep The Net Emoticon Free! <<
Scott Dorsey
>Dan, does your experiment play into how the PREAMP reacts to the add-on
>resistance across the mic?
>
>and before we even get to Mr Kennedy's marvelous experimentation...
>Just to be damnedannoyingly scientific about this...
>QUESTIONS:
>
>how do we know this isn;t a less-than-stellar 57?
>
>what transformer is IN the 57?
> (almost a pointless question since SHURE doesn;t
> tell what changes have been made there thru the years)
The current Shure mikes are using transformers made by Shure in their factory
in Mexico. They are pretty small but have a surprisingly good square wave
response when terminated well (and not such a good one if they are not).
>Is this 57 'better' WITHOUT its internal xfrmr?
> (All Warranty-Voiding-Warnings Apply)
It's different, and the loading issues change. I worked with someone who
swore by the SM57 with the transformer removed as a kick drum mike.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Jay Kadis
<moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com> writes:
[snip]
>
> what transformer is IN the 57?
> (almost a pointless question since SHURE doesn;t
> tell what changes have been made there thru the years)
>
I got this from Tim Vear of Shure back in 1995:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Short History of the SM57
The Shure Model SM57 is a unidirectional (cardioid) dynamic microphone.
It employs the Unidyne III cartridge, originally used in the Model 545.
The Unidyne III is the third generaton of the first Unidyne cartridge used
in the Model 55 in 1939. The Unidyne II was used in the "small" Model 55S
brought out in 1950. The 545 was introduced in 1959 and the SM57 followed
in 1965. The Unidyne III was designed primarily by Shure engineer Ernie
Seeler.
The SM57 was offered as a high quality microphone for speech applications
in broadcast, recording and sound reinforcement. Though the microphone
achieved some acceptance in the broadcast field, its ultimate success was
with live sound applications and recording. By about 1968, the SM57 had
been "discovered" by the fledgling concert sound industry. To engineers
at that time (and now as well) the microphone presented a very useable
tool: wide frequency response with an intelligibility enhancing presence
peak, a very uniform cardioid polar pattern to minimize feedback and other
unwanted pickup, and an affordable price (the original retail price was
about $85 with cable).
Over the years the SM57 has established itself as the second-most popular
microphone in the world (after the SM58). It is widely used in both live
sound and recording applications, in particular for vocals, guitar
amplifiers and snare drums. It is used in such a large variety of
situations that it often tops engineers' lists of "the one microphone to
be stranded with on a desert island."
Concerning changes to the SM57 since its introduction: there has not been
a major change to the basic microphone design. However, there have been
numerous small changes and improvements in the intervening 30 years. Here
are some of the more noticeable ones:
1. Original separate male XLR end cap was integrated into one-piece
handle casting (1960's).
2. Original metal closing ring (houses cartridge body) changed to plastic
(at least twice).
3. Plastic closing ring changed back to (current) metal (at least twice,
last time in the 1970's).
4. Brown "gooey" transformer potting compound changed to RTV silicone
(1970's).
5. Metal side screen eliminated from grille assembly (1970's).
6. Grille locking ring strengthened (1980's).
7. 50 ohm tap (orange wire) eleminated from transformer (1980's).
8. Black ground wire to cartridge replaced by ground tab on XLR connector
(1990's).
The essential cartridge parts (diaphragm, voice coil, magnet, pole piece,
acoustic resistance network, shockmount) remain as originally designed.
Output level has remained constant as has the polar pattern. The overall
frequency response of today's units is still within a few dB of the
original test curves.
Shure's basic philosophy on the SM57 (and other classics) remains: "if it
ain't broke, don't fix it!"
Tim Vear
Applications Group
Shure Brothers Inc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Garage Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x
Kurt Albershardt
>>
>>Did I mention that I prefer small-diaphragm condensers and ribbons on
>>acoustic instruments?
>
> I often find that my preferences aren't always preferable and that
> things I thought I didn't prefer work better than what I thought I
> preferred. I would generally agree with you. Then times arrive where a
> large diaphragm slays what I thought I preferred. In the end good work
> can be done with both types in most instances.
Agreed. But if I had to buy only one or two for acoustic instruments
I'd pick something other than an LD condenser--especially at this price
point.
Tim
all in. I would like to offer my comments to a few of the thoughts
expressed, at the risk of sounding unappreciative. Believe me, I do
appreciate the input, even if it goes against the grain of my
thinking!
>>I would save up a bit more money and buy a Microtech Gefel UM70<<
Beautiful looking mic, I can't wait to get my hands on one. But I do
think I need to develop my taste before I dig that deep into my
pocket. Heck, I still spend under $15 bucks for a bottle of red wine.
>>Pack up the 58's and use them for sound reinforcement only. <<
Thank you for confirming my opinion of these. They put dents in the
floor, not in the wallet, but they don't sound that great--to my
ear--as recording mics.
>>you stated you were going to take the Mackie into an ADAT XT-20,
then
into an ADAT Edit card to "pump 24bit digital into" your Mac<<
My understanding is that, while the ADAT writes 20 bit to tape, the
A/D converters are actually 24 bit, and if I go straight to the
computer HD while recording, I can get the full 24 bits. I haven't
tested this yet, though.
>>you may wish to consider a different interface...<<
Yes, I would. But for right now, this is the right solution. The group
I've been playing with has one more series of gigs this summer before
we lose our fiddler to another city. I picked up the ADAT so that I
could multi-track record our live gigs without hauling a computer
around.
>>Your most valuable asset (at least for now) is your day job.<<
I'll say! If I didn't have the job I'd have plenty of time, but no
money. Now if I could only figure out how to cut out sleep...
>>Recording music may not be as easy as falling off a log, but it's
quite a bit easier than...<<
I shared this observation with my companion--she feels much better
about my recording persuits now. Thank you!!!!
>>The Mackie-M160 match is made in hell.<<
Please educate me. What is it about the VLZ-PRO pre-amps that the
pro's don't like? They sound quiet to me, which is far better than the
crap I used to have. What should I be listening for?
>>I hope you've done similar research on room sizes, acoustic
isolation, etc.<<
Yes, sir! Enough to switch the spaces between my control and
recording rooms, offset the studs on my interior walls, and determine
that I could double-wall and double-panel the ceiling and floor if I
need to. Beyond that, I'm going by my ear and gut instincts.
Once again, thank you for ALL of the mic suggestions so far, I am
taking them all in consideration, and please keep the comments coming.
I'd like to think that when I do make some lousy purchase decisions,
that it will not be out of total ignorance.
Tim
Dean Dydekl
thrashing
over-distorted guitars, just fine folk stuff, guitars, vocals,
mandolins, acoustic bass, with the occasional bluegrass set thrown in.
And, like every clueless wannabe, I plan to blow a small fortune on
cheap, over-hyped microphones before I realize the errors of my ways
Given what you've stated above...what kind of Neumanns mics can you
borrow?
For acoustic guitars, mandolins, acoustic bass, and ocassional
bluegrass...
find a used Neumann KM84/184 or two. I've found them great on
everything, and considering your signal chain...start with great mics
during tracking and it'll easier in the long run,..less eqing and a
more satisfying final mixdown.
Vocals-a used Soundelux U195 very flexible, could work well on the
acoustic bass too.
At the other end of the chain is monitors, thats where you make all
the decisions as you listen back so plan on the absolute best you can
buy.
Dean
Dave Modisette
On 31-May-2002, mri...@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
> > some mics and does the hamster fellatio thing with SM57s, due to loading
> > issues between the mic output and the preamp input. Since the Shure
> > might like to see a nice transformer and the Mackie has none, is there
> > any posibility that one could select a particular Jensen mic input
> > transformer, put it in a little box with XLR I and O (and maybe some
> > simple resistor and capacitor?) loading for the transformer, and then
> > feed the Mackie's inputs from the transformer?
>
> Take a look on the Jensen web site. There used to be an application
> note there to add a transformer to the input of the original 1604.
> It's probably still there. A call to Jensen to see if that's still the
> right configuration for the newer Mackie mixers is proably in order.
As an owner of an original 1604, I was wondering what phenomenon you guys
are talking about? I have a 1604 in my wedding band PA rig and I've noticed
that my 57 seemed to be louder than other mics the guys were using. Is
this what you are talking about?
--
Dave Modisette
www.Soundclick.com/davemodisette
Mike Rivers
> It's different, and the loading issues change. I worked with someone who
> swore by the SM57 with the transformer removed as a kick drum mike.
I've worked with someone who swore by a little speaker in a little
metal box as a kick drum mic. Wonder who that is?
What's a good load for an SM57? (and don't anybody say a truckload of
manure)
hank alrich
> >>The Mackie-M160 match is made in hell.<<
> Please educate me. What is it about the VLZ-PRO pre-amps that the
> pro's don't like?
Whether or not I find a Mackie pre of any iteration usable in a given
situation depends on how it works _with the mic I want to use_. Lots of
"affordable" condensors work relatively well because their active
electronics buffer them nicely into the Mackie. Mics like the Beyer M160
and M260 have teeny little outputs that require a lot of gain in many
situations, particularly with acoustic sources (like you're talking
about), often more gain than is available from a Mackie pre. On top of
that the interaction between them and the Mackie pre is not optimal
(this has been hammered heer a few million times and going to Google for
some Scott Dorsy commentary about mic-to-pre action might be useful to
you), so when you open the pre all the way lkooking for the necessary
gain ugliness is magnified.
Something you mind find worthwhile would be to go to a pro audio
supplier in your area. Ask them to demonstrate an SM57 into a Mackie
preamp and then into something like a Great River, a Phoenix, an API or
a Neve, etc. You might be startled to hear the mic go from sounding like
it cost twenty bucks to sounding like a thousand dollar mic.
(Have you been following Tonebarge's comments in another Mackie related
thread, where he is outted for having produced an astonishly fine mix
using an original 1604 and then confesses to the quality of the kit used
at the tracking stage? <g> Do you have a set of the most recent RAP
compilation CDs?)
> They sound quiet to me, which is far better than the
> crap I used to have. What should I be listening for?
See above. If I were you I might dig into the cunnilingus seeking
permission to buy a Great River MP2-MH or -NV or a Millennia HV-3 in the
two channel, single rack space version.
Luke Kaven
Listen to Bob and Ty. Rethink the mics. Don't get into the
"everything is almost good enough" spiral. See to good microphones
from the start if you want to get anywhere at all without losing a few
thousand in the long run.
tf...@jagunet.com (Ty Ford) wrote in message news:<DB6707CE0A4FBDBC.378529B9...@lp.airnews.net>...
hank alrich
> In article <ad82sv$3he$1...@panix2.panix.com> klu...@panix.com writes:
> > It's different, and the loading issues change. I worked with someone who
> > swore by the SM57 with the transformer removed as a kick drum mike.
> I've worked with someone who swore by a little speaker in a little
> metal box as a kick drum mic. Wonder who that is?
Somebody with a monitoring chain that is too good.
> What's a good load for an SM57? (and don't anybody say a truckload of
> manure)
Humboldt.
hank alrich
> Listen to Bob and Ty. Rethink the mics. Don't get into the
> "everything is almost good enough" spiral. See to good microphones
> from the start if you want to get anywhere at all without losing a few
> thousand in the long run.
Tim,
Reread what Luke said.
Ethan Winogrand
pair of the MC012s from the Sound Room, there they come with three
stereo matched capsules; omni,card, & hyper card. then as many sm57s
as you can afford. then save up for a large dia cond.Used TLM 103s
are great for the buck. Someone mentioned the AT4041, which are nice,
but the multi positioned capsules on the MC012 give them the edge IMO.
Good luck and have fun,
Ethan Winogrand
Spokes Studio
Spain
timp...@mac.com (Tim) wrote in message news:<9a9b9053.0205...@posting.google.com>...
> Esteemed gentlefolk,
>
> I have done the unthinkable. I have assumed that I have what it takes
> to be a damn good recording studio operator, and I have set off,
> under-funded, under-educated, and inexperienced.
>
> What I DO have, is a substantial collection of quality acoustic
> instruments, a building that I own, a keen skill with all things
> technical, a group of talented friends who need a place to record, and
> a good day job.
>
> Before you try to talk me out of this, let me tell you that it is too
> late. I have already started framing my recording space and control
> room, purchased some gear that suits my modest aims, and announced to
> my playmates that they can come join me in my sandbox.
>
> What I do need is some microphone advice, and I'm desperate enough to
> get skewered just for poking my head from behind the tree.
>
> I plan to record acoustic instruments only--no drum kits, no thrashing
> over-distorted guitars, just fine folk stuff, guitars, vocals,
> mandolins, acoustic bass, with the occasional bluegrass set thrown in.
> And, like every clueless wannabe, I plan to blow a small fortune on
> cheap, over-hyped microphones before I realize the errors of my ways
> and spend good money on good equipment.
>
> From what I have been reading in the archives, I could easily pick up
> a pair of Oktava MK 012's and a single MK 319, and if I'm really
> lucky, be happy with my purchase for a year or two. But, would it be
> enough? Do I need TWO MK 319's? Is one enough? Would I be better off
> wasting my money on Chinese gear instead of on Russian gear? Should I
> have my friend from St. Petersburgh make a few phone calls for me?
>
> For your entertainment, I plan to use a Mackie 1642 VLZ into an Alesis
> XT-20 ADAT with the Edit card to pump 24bit digital into my Mac
> workstation. To warm things up, I have the option of running out to
> 1/2" tape for mastering (Otari) and I wonder if this is a good idea...
> I also have buddies with Neumans and I can borrow a couple of
> SM-5B's(are these any good?) from the guys in our broadcast department
> if I keep on their good side.
>
> So, if you were me, and only had $500-$600 left to spend on
> microphones this year, and wanted to create CDs for
> singer-songwriters, and you already have a couple of SM-58's in your
> back pocket, what would you do?
>
Luke Kaven
> Luke Kaven <ka...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>
> > Listen to Bob and Ty. Rethink the mics. Don't get into the
> > "everything is almost good enough" spiral. See to good microphones
> > from the start if you want to get anywhere at all without losing a few
> > thousand in the long run.
>
> Tim,
>
> Reread what Luke said.
Read Hank's note.
Rinse.
Repeat.
WillStG
sell is a great idea generally, but tell the guy how to cover his bases for
$5-600... He has a budget and needs to do more than "one person at a time", he
says he needs to record acoustic groups. That probably means a couple or 3
guitars, bass, vocals at least as a scratch track but maybe not, maybe a
fiddle, flute or (God help us) a banjo. A pair of expensive mics ain't gonna
get him too far with this, but there are inexpensive mics out here that he
could get to cover his requirements, small diaphragm condensers like the Oktava
MC012's and the Marshall 603's, and the Behringer 8000's which are omnis, omnis
can be fun and educational. A mic with a figure 8 or a hypercardiod pattern
would help if he has to record an instumentalist who is also singing, maybe
hypercardiod caps on an MC012. The ATM25 that Full Compass is blowing is
popular on kick, it would probably be a decent mic on an acoustic bass coupled
with a small condenser stuffed in the bridge. And a half decent large
diaphrgm condenser that won't kill his budget would be a Marshall V67G 0r B,
even a single AT4050 like "J.D. Crowe & the New South" were all singing around
at that bluegrass festival on PBS would eat up his whole budget (and which one
of you guys was the culprit on that one I was wondering. Good example of an
act that knows how to blend/work a single vocal mic. Cool Sony mic on the
Dobro, but I think the Acoustic guitar mic was out of phase. )
hank alrich
> Come on you guys. I think buying stuff you'll use for life and
> never sell is a great idea generally, but tell the guy how to cover his
> bases for $5-600... He has a budget and needs to do more than "one person
> at a time", he says he needs to record acoustic groups. That probably
> means a couple or 3 guitars, bass, vocals at least as a scratch track but
> maybe not, maybe a fiddle, flute or (God help us) a banjo. A pair of
> expensive mics ain't gonna get him too far with this
There are many ways to approach this type of recording, and some of the
best work I've done with acoustic ensembles, including vocalists, has
been with _two good mics_, plus an occasional spot mic. It ain't much
different than one person using 18 mics on a drum kit and another two or
three.
Justin Ulysses Morse
<j...@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> I got this from Tim Vear of Shure back in 1995:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> A Short History of the SM57
>
> The overall frequency response of today's units is still within a few dB of the
> original test curves.
"a few db"??? Hell, just about every mic built has overall frequency
response within "a few db" of an SM57. (In the sense that I'm just a
few dollars short this month.)
ulysses
Paul Bawol
the SM57 and 545 share the same capsule. (Possibly sometimes they have and
sometimes they haven't?) Here's a rap post from '95...
Please allow me to set things straight. The 545 is not made of reject
parts from the SM57. The SM57 has a voice coil made of a different
material than the 545. The 545 uses an all copper voice coil, which makes
it a little heavier than the SM57 coil. In fact, we started making the
545 about 7 years before the SM57. Also, do to manufacturing reasons, it
is impossible to use 57 rejects for the 545. Since the 545 and SM57 have
different grills, the cartridges are mounted differently. Also, since the
cartridges are manufactured into the mounting assembly, it is impossible
to use a reject SM57 for the 545. The mounting hardware will not allow
it.
This is a widely held myth of our products and I hope this helps clear
things up.
Rick Waller
Applications Group
Shure Brothers Inc
Shur...@aol.com
ph: 708-866-2634
fx: 708-866-2606
...Paul
--
**********************************************************
"In the analog realm, it ain't "OVER" 'til it's over."
"Jny Vee" <moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com> wrote in message
news:310520021044292532%moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com...
Luke Kaven
> Come on you guys. I think buying stuff you'll use for life and never
> sell is a great idea generally, but tell the guy how to cover his bases for
> $5-600... He has a budget and needs to do more than "one person at a time", he
> says he needs to record acoustic groups.
For acoustic, all the more reason to start with two good mics as Hank
suggested.
I sympathize with your point, and I also admit that there is a
tradeoff between learning to record right away, and waiting until one
has the money for the right equipment. I also sympathize with the
poster, because I took a similar path. As a teenager, I did radio
production in the 70s, but otherwise didn't pick up the interest again
until my late 30s. I went the route, from Walkman Pro + AT822, to
Mackie 1202VLZ, 1604VLZ, Oktavas, CAD E100s, SASS-P, RODE NT2, Beyer
MC740, Dbx1066, DT760 DAT. But by the time I accumlated all of this,
I was very unhappy with the sound. Oh sure, everything was 'not bad',
but nothing was very good (and sounding worse over time as my ears got
more critical). By the time I started to want to make records, I
realized that *nothing* I had was good enough (except the Beyers). If
I was going to make records, I'd have to replace the entire rig from
top to bottom. And that's what I ended up doing, at great expense.
I know that getting the trade off (learning now versus waiting to get
the best equipment) right is very tricky. It is made more difficult
by the fact that one's ability to listen critically improves over time
in unforeseen ways, and one's ambitions might change. I would have
been better off financially if I had borrowed. The better mics keep
their value better, last longer, and would have brought equivalent
value in real income sooner.
There are a lot of mics in the $500-$700 range that one can do well
with. Neumann TLM193, TLM103, KM184; selections from BLUE,
Earthworks, Gefell, the AKG C480 or C460.
Luke
Ty Ford
ka...@rci.rutgers.edu (Luke Kaven) wrote:
> I also sympathize with the
>poster, because I took a similar path. As a teenager, I did radio
>production in the 70s, but otherwise didn't pick up the interest again
>until my late 30s. I went the route, from Walkman Pro + AT822, to
>Mackie 1202VLZ, 1604VLZ, Oktavas, CAD E100s, SASS-P, RODE NT2, Beyer
>MC740, Dbx1066, DT760 DAT. But by the time I accumlated all of this,
>I was very unhappy with the sound. Oh sure, everything was 'not bad',
>but nothing was very good (and sounding worse over time as my ears got
>more critical). By the time I started to want to make records, I
>realized that *nothing* I had was good enough (except the Beyers). If
>I was going to make records, I'd have to replace the entire rig from
>top to bottom. And that's what I ended up doing, at great expense.
>
>I know that getting the trade off (learning now versus waiting to get
>the best equipment) right is very tricky. It is made more difficult
>by the fact that one's ability to listen critically improves over time
>in unforeseen ways, and one's ambitions might change. I would have
>been better off financially if I had borrowed. The better mics keep
>their value better, last longer, and would have brought equivalent
>value in real income sooner.
>
>There are a lot of mics in the $500-$700 range that one can do well
>with. Neumann TLM193, TLM103, KM184; selections from BLUE,
>Earthworks, Gefell, the AKG C480 or C460.
>
>Luke
My name is Ty Ford, I'm also an audio junkie. I went through pretty much the
same steps Luke did. The problem was partially created by the fact that it
took me a number of years to know good from bad.
Fortunately I was able to get a lot of experience making a living at radio
stations and in recording studios, where I began to be able to hear the
difference between good and bad. As a result, I didn't make many bad purchases.
It's a different world out there now. There's ten times more gear than when
I was coming up; and most of it is made to sell at an attractive price to
people many of whom can't tell the difference between good and bad.
Quality does make a difference and it usually doesn't come cheap. There are
millions of audio enthusiasts that are in denial of this simple fact.
Some go through quite a change when their ears get good enough to realize
the gear they thought was good won't get them the quality their ears have
learned to appreciate on other recordings. Other never hear the difference.
You'll have this.
Luke Kaven
> same steps Luke did. The problem was partially created by the fact that it
> took me a number of years to know good from bad.
>
> Fortunately I was able to get a lot of experience making a living at radio
> stations and in recording studios, where I began to be able to hear the
> difference between good and bad. As a result, I didn't make many bad purchases.
>
> It's a different world out there now. There's ten times more gear than when
> I was coming up; and most of it is made to sell at an attractive price to
> people many of whom can't tell the difference between good and bad.
>
> Quality does make a difference and it usually doesn't come cheap. There are
> millions of audio enthusiasts that are in denial of this simple fact.
>
> Some go through quite a change when their ears get good enough to realize
> the gear they thought was good won't get them the quality their ears have
> learned to appreciate on other recordings. Other never hear the difference.
>
> You'll have this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
> For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
> click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
For those who didn't already know, Ty has been writing about these
issues for several years now, ever since the project studio thing
started. His site is well worth a visit. Could have saved me a lot
if I had checked it out then, assuming I would have understood it.
Luke
Tim
questions, and they were all valuable. I'm learning much in a short
period of time. No mic purchases yet, but I'm really taking everything
said to heart.
I am watching for good deals in the marketplace, and I intend to
borrow some U-87's to experiment with and compare to as many other
mics as I can, all in the spirit of getting an education. I'm
probably going to get a pair of Oktava 012s, probably with the full
set of caps. Then I'll hold out for a $500-$800 large diaphram
condenser, rather than a cheaper one--okay, I might get an Oktava 319
"just on the principle that they're so cheap"!
I'm also going to ask a recording engineer who owns a couple of
studios to spend some time with me, to teach me about what he likes
and dislikes about the mics in his closet.
I am still wondering if there would be any point to mastering to
analog tape before final burning to CD. Would this improve sound? I
have been offered a pro level 1" tape machine--actually, my pick of
3-4 machines, but I don't know if I want to adopt an orphan.
Thanks again,
Tim
Geoff Wood
(IMHO)....
- You only need to borrow/hire one U87 to get the idea (straight off I was
lucky to buy and repair one extremely cheap)
- The MC012s yeah, go for it - but do get a Soundroom pair. I made the
mistake of the C1000 route first, but upgraded at minimal cost. You may care
to pay a little extra and get the AT40xx's, but save the money and get what
you omiited to mention, and are pretty near essential : a couple of SM57s
(used OK, they are robust) and a MD421 (again pretty safe used).
I would get (as a general purpose LDC) an NT1000 - because that's what I
did, and have no regrets despite having the fore-mentioned U87 (which is
quite different anyway).The U87 is darker than the relativily bright NT. An
NTK woulfd be getting darker again.
Mastering to analogue tape to improve the sound ? Unless you get a pretty
flash analogue tape deck, all you are doing is putting things through a LPF
and compressor. Use a plugin or an RNC !
Good luck !
geoff
"Tim" <timp...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:9a9b9053.02060...@posting.google.com...