Shure SM58 vs. Behringer XM2000
and...@zdnetmail.com
Behringer XM2000 mics, and I was wondering if there was anybody out
there that has had experience with both. How does the XM2000 compare
to the SM58, besides the fact that the XM2000 is $60 less than the
SM58? If there's no major difference, I'd just go out and buy the $30
XM2000's instead.
I'm not talking about any specific application, just in general, I
guess.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Lord Valve
>
>I've heard good things about both the ubiquitous Shure SM58 and
>Behringer XM2000 mics, and I was wondering if there was anybody out
>there that has had experience with both. How does the XM2000 compare
>to the SM58, besides the fact that the XM2000 is $60 less than the
>SM58? If there's no major difference, I'd just go out and buy the $30
>XM2000's instead.
>
>I'm not talking about any specific application, just in general, I
>guess.
Lord Valve Speaketh:
There's no doubt about it...the XM2000 is one of the better mikes
to be had in the $30 price range. As a matter of fact, mikes this
cheap are rarely this good. A few things to watch out for, though...
the XM2000 has more handling noise than a 58 does; if you're using
it as a handheld mike in a live situation, you'll be dealing with
some thumps and bumps. For recording, this won't be a problem.
The off-axis rejection is similar to the 58, but not quite as
good. The XM2000 has a slightly hotter output, too. Response
curves are similar; the famous Shure upper-midrange presence peak
was obviously what the Behringer folks were shooting for, and they
did a fairly good job in achieving it. The downside: quality
control on the Chinese-manufactured XM2000 is not nearly up to
Shure's standards; if you're going to buy XM2000s, buy them from
a local dealer who will let you audition them through the store's
sound systems. Listen to at least 5 XM2000s, and pick the one that
sounds the best. You'll be surprised at the variations in performance
you may encounter while trying them out. When you get a good example
of one of these, it's a *very* good mike. Will it replace a 58?
Nope. Although similar in performance, there are other things to
be considered than just frequency response curves, handling noise,
and off-axis rejection. One of these is how much SPL the mike can
handle before it starts suffering from diaphragm distortion or
saturation of the onboard transformer. The XM2000 falls short
in this area; the SM58 can take more SPL with ease. Will this
matter? Maybe...it depends on what you're miking with it. A
vocalist with a powerful voice may well benefit from the extra
headroom the Shure will provide. If you're miking a guitar
or bass amp, the XM2000 will work fine, up to a point. If you're
talking thrash metal levels, the 58 is the better choice. The
XM2000 will fare better with jazz and other music which is played at
less than deafening levels. What it boils down to in the end is this:
The more mikes you can own, the better off you will be. Buy the
XM2000 not *instead of* the SM58, but *in addition to*. You'll
find that there are some applications each mike outperforms the other
at, and in time you'll have a good feel for when to use each.
ABOVE ALL...use *your* ears to make the decision. Don't pay
attention to the opinions of the Million-Dollar-Snobs who tend to
look down their noses at anything that doesn't cost a fortune;
by automatically dismissing a $30 mike from consideration, these
people never do find out that some gear has a better price/performance
ratio than one would ordinarily expect. Check out an XM2000 and let
us know what you thought of it...your opinion is valuable!
Lord Valve
VISIT MY WEBSITE: http://www.freeyellow.com/members2/lord-valve/
Good tube FAQ for newbies. Click the e-mail link and join my
SPAM LIST; just put "SPAM ME" in the header and I'll sign you
up. (If you only want a set of e-mail catalogs, put "CATS ONLY"
in the header.) I specialize in top quality HAND-SELECTED NOS and
current-production vacuum tubes for guitar and bass amps. Good
prices, fast service. TONS of gear and parts in stock...let's DEAL!
NBS Electronics, 230 South Broadway, Denver, CO 80209-1510
Phone orders/tech support after 1:00 PM Denver time at 303-778-1156
NOW ACCEPTING VISA AND MASTERCARD
CHAT WITH LORD VALVE: Log onto any DALnet server and join
channel #CONELRAD. Look for me there most any night after
11:00 PM Denver (Mountain) time. Guitar-amp questions and
what-have-you are welcome.
"The only trouble with being blind is...you can't see a goddamn thing!"
-Ray Charles-
Phildo
<and...@zdnetmail.com> wrote in message news:7oc64l$b35$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I've heard good things about both the ubiquitous Shure SM58 and
> Behringer XM2000 mics, and I was wondering if there was anybody out
> there that has had experience with both. How does the XM2000 compare
> to the SM58, besides the fact that the XM2000 is $60 less than the
> SM58? If there's no major difference, I'd just go out and buy the $30
> XM2000's instead.
You get what you pay for. I've used a couple of the XM2000's with a band I
get in on a regular basis and they insist on using their own mics. They
don't sound too bad although they are not all that good when it comes to
handling noise and I've noticed them start to overload when the singer uses
his megaphone whereas a sm58 would hold its own. They do sound surprisingly
like an SM58 though, just noisier. If you are on a budget then it's probably
the best mic you'll get for the money but personally I think it's worth
spending the extra money and going for something better be it shure, AKG or
whatever.
Again, let your ears do the choosing. Try them out (and remember to try out
more than one if you can as every mic will sound that bit different) and go
with what you feel is right and what is in your budget.
--
Phildo
ICQ 15290022
Remove my pants to reply
ATAC
the Shure SM58 has been an industry standard for many years and the
Behringer XM2000 costs $30!
and...@zdnetmail.com wrote in message <7oc64l$b35$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I've heard good things about both the ubiquitous Shure SM58 and
>Behringer XM2000 mics, and I was wondering if there was anybody out
>there that has had experience with both. How does the XM2000 compare
>to the SM58, besides the fact that the XM2000 is $60 less than the
>SM58? If there's no major difference, I'd just go out and buy the $30
>XM2000's instead.
>
>I'm not talking about any specific application, just in general, I
>guess.
>
>
Chris G.
>
> I echo the premise that you get what you pay for...there is a reason that
> the Shure SM58 has been an industry standard for many years and the
> Behringer XM2000 costs $30!
I would recommend V-tech and Morisson dynamic mics in the $30 range.
They are the best I've used in that price range.
Chris G.
J.A. Johnson
music. I use the XM2000 on the punk and death metal bands. And I use the
58's on the less aggresive and more respectful bands. This way if they
wanna smash something let it be a $30 mic.
the_...@my-deja.com
"Chris G." <chri...@txdirect.net> wrote:
> I would recommend V-tech and Morisson dynamic mics in the $30
range.
> They are the best I've used in that price range.
>
> Chris G.
>
V-tech! Yay! V-tech! Wow, that sure brings back memories. Wonder
where I left those--probably in my folks' basement.
--
Jim "The Kooch" Kuczkowski
Not enough memory to complete all overviews
Fletcher
>
> I agree with JAJ - the BEHringer are
> terrific for economy mikes. THEy come in
> a great carrying case as well. the behringer
> is a cardiod pattern with freq response from
> 50-15khz -about the same as a 58.
>
> JOhn Amstadter
> BEhringer REp MIdwest
I've gotta admit, you're a WHore, but at least you're a consistant
whore. HOw you actually SWallow the BUllshit you spew is beyond me, but
at least YOu never WAiver.
BY the way, have you EVer heard any decent EQuipment? And what's with
the ARbitrary use of two capital LEtters?
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
Dave Martin
Fletcher wrote in message <37AF83...@mercenary.com>...
>
>
>I've gotta admit, you're a WHore, but at least you're a consistant
>whore.
Hey, that sounds like MY job description! Actually, the difference between
me and a street hooker is that there are some things that THEY won't do for
money...
Dave Martin
Digital Media Associates, Inc.
Nashville, Tennessee
dave....@nashville.com
Hot Jamms
Scott Dorsey
Hot Jamms <hotj...@aol.com> wrote:
>I agree with JAJ - the BEHringer are
>terrific for economy mikes. THEy come in
>a great carrying case as well. the behringer
>is a cardiod pattern with freq response from
>50-15khz -about the same as a 58.
Do you usually quote frequency responses without any tolerance levels?
Just saying "50Hz-15KHz" is totally meaningless. It could be 60 dB down
at the ends of the passband. It could be down .5 dB. Who knows?
It's meaningless.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
David Morgan (MAMS)
>
>Fletcher wrote in message <37AF83...@mercenary.com>...
>>
>>I've gotta admit, you're a WHore, but at least you're a consistant
>>whore.
>Hey, that sounds like MY job description!
>
>Dave Martin
Damn... I gotta' raise my rates.
David Morgan (MAMS)
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, TX (972) 622-1972
___________________________________________
hank alrich
> the behringer
> is a cardiod pattern with freq response from
> 50-15khz -about the same as a 58.
John, you know this is a meaningless statement, eh? Without reference to
a specified level within the bandwidth of the device and statement of
variation(s) therefrom, one is not talking _specifications_.
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
MARK E LIERLY
Did you piss in Fletcher's Gatorade or pass gas in his booth at AES??!?
Personally, I don't think you're spouting bullshit, since the revered SM58
is the standard by which all "economy" vocal mics are judged, I am quite
sure the folks at Behringer would not introduce a mic that was not at least
within a few dB in freq. response and output level.
It probably sounds very similar.
You must have quite a quandry on your hands now, trying to decide which mics
to sell to which dealers, Samson or Behringer?!?
Regards,
Mark Lierly
PS. Is the XM2000 Y2K compliant? (ha!)
Hot Jamms <hotj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990809200654...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
> I agree with JAJ - the BEHringer are
> terrific for economy mikes. THEy come in
> a great carrying case as well. the behringer
> is a cardiod pattern with freq response from
> 50-15khz -about the same as a 58.
>
Alf Inge Iversen
>
> Hot Jamms <hotj...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > the behringer
> > is a cardiod pattern with freq response from
> > 50-15khz -about the same as a 58.
>
> a specified level within the bandwidth of the device and statement of
> variation(s) therefrom, one is not talking _specifications_.
When I hear/read a bandwidth specification without a
specified cut off frequency level, I usually consider it as
a -3dB bandwidth. Isn't this a kind of standard ???
soun...@ix.netcom.com
>In article <19990809200654...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
>Hot Jamms <hotj...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I agree with JAJ - the BEHringer are
>>terrific for economy mikes. THEy come in
>>a great carrying case as well. the behringer
>>is a cardiod pattern with freq response from
>>50-15khz -about the same as a 58.
>
>Do you usually quote frequency responses without any tolerance levels?
>Just saying "50Hz-15KHz" is totally meaningless. It could be 60 dB down
>at the ends of the passband. It could be down .5 dB. Who knows?
>It's meaningless.
>--scott
Pardon me, but isn't +/- 3db sort of the "implied" tolerance when
referencing specs on a "buck mic"? Out here in the live sound
trenches we seldom get to use anything that's truly ruler-flat, so the
assumption is that the response graph *will* have a squiggle on it
somewhere. The hz to khz specs mainly let you know if the graph is
even worth looking at. If the bottom number is 50, the mic ain't gonna
cut it on a kick drum. If the top number is 12k, the mic is probably
not suited for hi hat.
Besides, ALL written specs are pretty much useless anyway (even with a
specified tolerance). If the mic has a 3 db rise at "X" hz but the
tolerance is +/- 3, the marketing department can legally call it
"flat". I wanna see the graph! (They probably fudged that too, but a
visual aid is easier on my tired old brain, so I can be lied to
without any mental effort on my part.)
Patrick Callahan
soun...@themothership.net
www.themothership.net
Nigel Orr
wrote:
>When I hear/read a bandwidth specification without a
>specified cut off frequency level, I usually consider it as
>a -3dB bandwidth. Isn't this a kind of standard ???
Well, soun...@ix.netcom.com posted above that he assumes +/- 3 dB, so
I think it's safe to say "No, it's not a standard"...
Even +/-3dB isn't particularly reliable- it would still 'meet spec' if
it was -1/+5dB, which sounds like quite a peak! You need a graph,
basically, and need to know how to interpret it. Like speaker
resistance/impedance, (or SPL measured in Watts ;-) ) a single figure
is basically meaningless.
Nigel
Scott Dorsey
<soun...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Pardon me, but isn't +/- 3db sort of the "implied" tolerance when
>referencing specs on a "buck mic"? Out here in the live sound
>trenches we seldom get to use anything that's truly ruler-flat, so the
>assumption is that the response graph *will* have a squiggle on it
>somewhere. The hz to khz specs mainly let you know if the graph is
>even worth looking at. If the bottom number is 50, the mic ain't gonna
>cut it on a kick drum. If the top number is 12k, the mic is probably
>not suited for hi hat.
You'd think it would be, but you would not BELIEVE the number of
manufacturers who take advantage of that.
>Besides, ALL written specs are pretty much useless anyway (even with a
>specified tolerance). If the mic has a 3 db rise at "X" hz but the
>tolerance is +/- 3, the marketing department can legally call it
>"flat". I wanna see the graph! (They probably fudged that too, but a
>visual aid is easier on my tired old brain, so I can be lied to
>without any mental effort on my part.)
Precisely. And there are a lot of folks who use narrowband or third octave
measurements too, with the "marketing department curve flattener." Something
with a narrow 20 dB peak at one frequency may still be within +/- 3dB
with a third-octave measurement, since the average across the third-octave
band is still close to nominal.
It just really burns me up, though, when people pull numbers out of
their hat that don't mean anything. I disagree that all written specs
are pretty much useless. The problem is that marketing departments have
worked for years to make them useless. They didn't start out that way.
MARK E LIERLY
quote the
-10dB downpoint when refering to "useable" frequency response!
I don't want to get off on a rant here, but......
For example, check out the Shure website www.shure.com and look at the spec
sheet for the Beta 52 kick drum mic. They say the response is 20Hz - 10kHz.
Wonderful! But look at the graph and it shows 10kHz is down at least 10dB
from the 1kHz point on the top end (not a big deal to me for a kick drum
mic!), but what disturbed me was that the graph line STOPPED at about 45Hz
on the low end! It didn't gently roll off, didn't even drop like a freight
elevator, just nothing! So exactly how far down is 20Hz when the line just
STOPS at 45Hz???? 20 - 30 dB??? Your guess is as good as mine!