18 Mar
2010
18 Mar
'10
9:25 p.m.
So I am recording the band's vocals tomorrow for this record, and, due to acute
poverty and our practice-room-mates absconding with all the mics, the only mics we have
available to us now are:
1) Shure PG-58 (with on-off switch! woo-hoo!)
and
2) Zoom H2
Which of these not-very-good choices would you recoomend would be slightly less crappy for
recording vocals?
The Zoom has condenser mics, which to my ears are quite good, but are designed for ambient
recordings and might not handle sound pressure levels of close-range vocal use. Also, it
has that 188ms delay in it too, and no way to turn off hardware monitoring. How bad is the
PG-58 though?
-ken
18 Mar
18 Mar
9:38 p.m.
On 18 March 2010 at 17:24, Ken Restivo <ken(a)restivo.org> wrote:
So I am recording the band's vocals tomorrow for
this record,
and, due to acute poverty and our practice-room-mates
absconding with all the mics, the only mics we have available
to us now are:
1) Shure PG-58 (with on-off switch! woo-hoo!)
and
2) Zoom H2
Which of these not-very-good choices would you recoomend would
be slightly less crappy for recording vocals?
The Zoom has condenser mics, which to my ears are quite good,
but are designed for ambient recordings and might not handle
sound pressure levels of close-range vocal use. Also, it has
that 188ms delay in it too, and no way to turn off hardware
monitoring. How bad is the PG-58 though?
I haven't heard a PG-58. But, I can say that I pretty much
don't like many of Shure's offerings. I'm more of a fan of AKG
and Audix and Beyer Dynamics. But, that's probably just my own
tastes.
That said, I've used the H2 and found the internal mics to be
pretty good. I'd use it over a pair of SM58 or SM57. Would
you be recording in stereo? Which pair in the H2, the 90deg or
120deg? Would you be recording in omni, i.e. all 4 mics on?
It wouldn't be all that hard, and maybe only 10-20 minutes, for
you to do a compare before the real recording.
G'luck....
--
Kevin
10:58 p.m.
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 05:38:38PM -0700, Kevin Cosgrove wrote:
On 18 March 2010 at 17:24, Ken Restivo <ken(a)restivo.org> wrote:
Thanks, yeah, I can do a quick compare tomorrow before we go to do the actual recording. I
don't want to waste a lot of everyone's time geeking out on stuff (i.e. plugging
stuff in, unplugging stuff, trying different options), I just need to jump in and do it.
Also, I can't run both at the same time, they'd have to be two different takes.
The Zoom H2 comes with its own windscreen which I guess could do as a pop guard; it's
not that much more or less than what's in a PG58.
After thinking about it a bit more, the big problem with the Zoom is that it's an omni
mic. I'm recording vocals, I don't want the room, just the voice. Even in 90
degree mode, it's still an omni pattern. So, in that case, the 58 might be necessary
the better call.
Thanks again to everyone for the replies.
-ken
So I am recording the band's vocals tomorrow
for this record,
and, due to acute poverty and our practice-room-mates
absconding with all the mics, the only mics we have available
to us now are:
1) Shure PG-58 (with on-off switch! woo-hoo!)
and
2) Zoom H2
Which of these not-very-good choices would you recoomend would
be slightly less crappy for recording vocals?
The Zoom has condenser mics, which to my ears are quite good,
but are designed for ambient recordings and might not handle
sound pressure levels of close-range vocal use. Also, it has
that 188ms delay in it too, and no way to turn off hardware
monitoring. How bad is the PG-58 though?
I haven't heard a PG-58. But, I can say that I pretty much
don't like many of Shure's offerings. I'm more of a fan of AKG
and Audix and Beyer Dynamics. But, that's probably just my own
tastes.
That said, I've used the H2 and found the internal mics to be
pretty good. I'd use it over a pair of SM58 or SM57. Would
you be recording in stereo? Which pair in the H2, the 90deg or
120deg? Would you be recording in omni, i.e. all 4 mics on?
It wouldn't be all that hard, and maybe only 10-20 minutes, for
you to do a compare before the real recording.
19 Mar
19 Mar
6:36 p.m.
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Ken Restivo wrote:
Thanks, yeah, I can do a quick compare tomorrow before
we go to do the
actual recording. I don't want to waste a lot of everyone's time
geeking out on stuff (i.e. plugging stuff in, unplugging stuff, trying
different options), I just need to jump in and do it. Also, I can't
run both at the same time, they'd have to be two different takes.
There's something to be said for that too though, especially if you're
trying to compensate for bad mic sound -- two layered takes! With the
right EQ, it can be really impressive.
--
+ Brent A. Busby + "We've all heard that a million monkeys
+ UNIX Systems Admin + banging on a million typewriters will
+ University of Chicago + eventually reproduce the entire works of
+ Physical Sciences Div. + Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet,
+ James Franck Institute + we know this is not true." -Robert Wilensky
18 Mar
18 Mar
9:47 p.m.
Excerpts from Ken Restivo's message of 2010-03-19 01:24:03 +0100:
So I am recording the band's vocals tomorrow for
this record, and, due to acute poverty and our practice-room-mates absconding with all the
mics, the only mics we have available to us now are:
1) Shure PG-58 (with on-off switch! woo-hoo!)
and
2) Zoom H2
Which of these not-very-good choices would you recoomend would be slightly less crappy
for recording vocals?
I have no experience with either, but ..
The Zoom has condenser mics, which to my ears are
quite good, but are designed for ambient recordings and might not handle sound pressure
levels of close-range vocal use.
I doubt that vocal sound pressure really is an issue, just make sure you
don't get 'wind' noises.
Also, it has that 188ms delay in it too, and no way to
turn off hardware monitoring.
I think I read that it can be used as usb interface directly, maybe it
behaves better then?
How bad is the PG-58 though?
-ken
I'd assume that the PG-58 isn't so different from other Shure vocal
mics, pure guess. Maybe it's better than the Zoom for really close range.
10:13 p.m.
On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 01:47 +0100, Philipp wrote:
Excerpts from Ken Restivo's message of 2010-03-19
01:24:03 +0100:
The mics in the H2 are pretty darn good. Here's a little trick that
can save you a few bucks on a pop filter... you can make your own pop
filter using an old pair of stockings and a coat hanger. Just make a
small loop with the coat hanger, slip the end of the stockings over the
loop, cut to size, and duct tape the thing to your mic stand. I used
one for a couple of years and it worked fine (I did finally spring for a
store bought one but it doesn't work any better than the than the home
made one - although it looks nicer). Oh, you might want to wash the
stockings first ;-)
So I am recording the band's vocals tomorrow
for this record, and, due to acute poverty and our practice-room-mates absconding with all
the mics, the only mics we have available to us now are:
1) Shure PG-58 (with on-off switch! woo-hoo!)
and
2) Zoom H2
Which of these not-very-good choices would you recoomend would be slightly less crappy
for recording vocals?
I have no experience with either, but ..
The Zoom has condenser mics, which to my ears are
quite good, but are designed for ambient recordings and might not handle sound pressure
levels of close-range vocal use.
I doubt that vocal sound pressure really is an issue, just make sure you
don't get 'wind' noises.
Also, it has
that 188ms delay in it too, and no way to turn off hardware monitoring.
I think I read that it can be used as usb interface directly, maybe it
behaves better then?
How bad is the PG-58 though?
-ken
I'd assume that the PG-58 isn't so different from other Shure vocal
mics, pure guess. Maybe it's better than the Zoom for really close range.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user 
10:27 p.m.
If possible, I would record both mics with the same takes on different
channels. Later in the mix, listen which one sounds good-better and use it.
also if the one has picked up some frequencies that the other is missing,
bring up that mic in the mix as well.
Viktor
19 Mar
19 Mar
4:16 a.m.
Hi,
On Friday 19 March 2010 01:24:03 Ken Restivo wrote:
So I am recording the band's vocals tomorrow for
this record, and, due to
acute poverty and our practice-room-mates absconding with all the mics,
the only mics we have available to us now are:
1) Shure PG-58 (with on-off switch! woo-hoo!)
and
2) Zoom H2
Which of these not-very-good choices would you recoomend would be slightly
less crappy for recording vocals?
As most people here haven't worked with the PG58 and so assume "standard"
Shure quality with these:
They get sold under 50€ for a box of three PG58 including cables. Now think
how much quality you can expect from that...
If you had a SM58 or even a beta58, I wouldn't worry (although these are more
live mics), but the PG58 is just cheap crap.
Use the mics of the Zoom. Block its omni direction with some shielding around
it, create an el-cheapo pop-filter with the singers nylons (assuming its a
she).
Maybe that helps...
Arnold
4:20 a.m.
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 17:24 -0700, Ken Restivo wrote:
So I am recording the band's vocals tomorrow for
this record, and, due to acute poverty and our practice-room-mates absconding with all the
mics, the only mics we have available to us now are:
1) Shure PG-58 (with on-off switch! woo-hoo!)
and
2) Zoom H2
Which of these not-very-good choices would you recoomend would be slightly less crappy
for recording vocals?
The Zoom has condenser mics, which to my ears are quite good, but are designed for
ambient recordings and might not handle sound pressure levels of close-range vocal use.
Also, it has that 188ms delay in it too, and no way to turn off hardware monitoring. How
bad is the PG-58 though?
Doesn't matter. Just use *some* kind of mike and get it recorded!
People wax lyrical about the difference in tonal quality between
different microphones. I can't hear a bloody difference, at least not
once you've gone beyond a cheap crappy PC desk mike out of the £1 shop.
What I can hear is people not getting on with the job because they heard
somewhere on that there Intarweb that SM57s are drum mikes and cannot be
used under any circumstances for vocals ;-)
Gordon MM0YEQ
10:33 a.m.
Quoting Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp(a)gjcp.net>et>:
Doesn't matter. Just use *some* kind of mike and get it recorded!
People wax lyrical about the difference in tonal quality between
different microphones. I can't hear a bloody difference, at least not
once you've gone beyond a cheap crappy PC desk mike out of the £1 shop.
What I can hear is people not getting on with the job because they heard
somewhere on that there Intarweb that SM57s are drum mikes and cannot be
used under any circumstances for vocals ;-)
+1 :D
10:39 a.m.
Doesn't
matter. Just use *some* kind of mike and get it recorded!
People wax lyrical about the difference in tonal quality between
different microphones. I can't hear a bloody difference, at least not
once you've gone beyond a cheap crappy PC desk mike out of the £1 shop.
What I can hear is people not getting on with the job because they heard
somewhere on that there Intarweb that SM57s are drum mikes and cannot be
used under any circumstances for vocals ;-)
+1 :D
11:18 a.m.
On 19/03/10 07:21, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
Doesn't matter. Just use *some* kind of mike and
get it recorded!
People wax lyrical about the difference in tonal quality between
different microphones. I can't hear a bloody difference, at least not
once you've gone beyond a cheap crappy PC desk mike out of the £1 shop.
What I can hear is people not getting on with the job because they heard
somewhere on that there Intarweb that SM57s are drum mikes and cannot be
used under any circumstances for vocals ;-)
I agree. A few years back while still a student, I bought a 3-pack of
Behringer XM1800S dynamic mics for £25 or something like that. I guess
they're a similar standard to the PG58.
http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/XM1800S.aspx
I've made quite a few musical recordings with them, and while you *can*
tell the difference between them and more expensive condenser mics, who
is actually listening for that?
Good music / a good band will sound good no matter what microphones you use.
11:34 a.m.
Good music / a good band will sound good no matter
what microphones you use.
Yeah, except for the time you have to spend mucking around with the EQ
and compression. You really ought to be processing the vocals no
matter the quality of band or microphone. It takes some tweaking to
get just the sound you want. Watch out if the Zoom has its own
compression/noise gate built in.
1:15 p.m.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Jonathan Gazeley
<jonathan.gazeley@.......>wrote:
I agree. A few years back while still a student, I bought a 3-pack of
Behringer XM1800S dynamic mics for £25 or something like that. I guess
they're a similar standard to the PG58.
Hey, I got one of those packs couple of months ago.
Did a A=B test against the 835 Sennheiser i have.
Man, could not believe how good they pick sound comparing with my beloved
senn.
One thing, and maybe big difference is for live use, handling this cheap is
really noise, not like the priced senn, but if you have a mic stand and
don't touch it it will give you good recording.
Leo
7:12 p.m.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 07:21:04AM +0000, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 17:24 -0700, Ken Restivo wrote:
Wow, thanks.
I did an A/B test between the PG58 and the Zoom, and I'll be damned if I could tell
the difference between the two in a proper double-blind scientific test.
The Zoom had a slightly better high-frequency response-- not surprising since it's
condensed carbon, and the PG58 is basically a tiny speaker with a coil and a diaphragm.
But it wasn't anything I would make a big deal about.
Also, at close range I didn't hear much background noise, so the either the Zoom
isn't very omni or the PG58 isn't very cardioid :-)
And, the PG58 with its built-in pop screen lets MORE pops through than the Zoom with
it's little foam windscreen. Go figure.
Another disadvantage to the Zoom, though: little clicks and pops-- probably due to the
Zoom's little microcontroller not being able to shovel bytes to and from the USB fast
enough.
It's going to come down to convenience, I think. I prefer dealing1 with my M-Audio
FastTrack with its nice XLR and TRS connectors and ability to turn off hardware
monitoring, than dealing with the Zoom with its always-on hardware monitoring and dinky
1/8" jacks. So I'll probably end up using the PG58 for everything except
background vocals where we'll have 3 or 4 of us standing around the Zoom in a
120-degree pattern.
-ken
So I am recording the band's vocals tomorrow
for this record, and, due to acute poverty and our practice-room-mates absconding with all
the mics, the only mics we have available to us now are:
1) Shure PG-58 (with on-off switch! woo-hoo!)
and
2) Zoom H2
Which of these not-very-good choices would you recoomend would be slightly less crappy
for recording vocals?
The Zoom has condenser mics, which to my ears are quite good, but are designed for
ambient recordings and might not handle sound pressure levels of close-range vocal use.
Also, it has that 188ms delay in it too, and no way to turn off hardware monitoring. How
bad is the PG-58 though?
Doesn't matter. Just use *some* kind of mike and get it recorded!
People wax lyrical about the difference in tonal quality between
different microphones. I can't hear a bloody difference, at least not
once you've gone beyond a cheap crappy PC desk mike out of the ??1 shop.
What I can hear is people not getting on with the job because they heard
somewhere on that there Intarweb that SM57s are drum mikes and cannot be
used under any circumstances for vocals ;-)
20 Mar
20 Mar
6:04 a.m.
On Friday 19 March 2010 23:10:11 Ken Restivo wrote:
It's going to come down to convenience, I think. I
prefer dealing1 with my
M-Audio FastTrack with its nice XLR and TRS connectors and ability to turn
off hardware monitoring, than dealing with the Zoom with its always-on
hardware monitoring and dinky 1/8" jacks. So I'll probably end up using
the PG58 for everything except background vocals where we'll have 3 or 4
of us standing around the Zoom in a 120-degree pattern.
Why not use the zoom as a microphone and record it with the fasttrack?
If you can't turn off the hw-monitoring on the zoom, make it a feature. Connect
the outputs of the zoom to the inputs of the fasttrack. Then you get the mics
and pre-amps of the zoom and the convenience of the fasttrack. And if you
press the record-button of the zoom, you get a backup recording as a bonus.
Have fun,
Arnold
PS: I would love to say I couldn't differentiate between the pg58 and my little
studio-projects condenser-mics. But even the difference between the pg and an
sm is obvious when you have both on stage through a pa...
22 Mar
22 Mar
1:54 p.m.
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:04:48AM +0100, Arnold Krille wrote:
On Friday 19 March 2010 23:10:11 Ken Restivo wrote:
Great idea! Unfortunately, I haven't checked email until today, and the vocals are
done now. I used the PG58. It was good enough for what we're doing; vocals are not the
focus of the music by any means.
It's going to come down to convenience, I
think. I prefer dealing1 with my
M-Audio FastTrack with its nice XLR and TRS connectors and ability to turn
off hardware monitoring, than dealing with the Zoom with its always-on
hardware monitoring and dinky 1/8" jacks. So I'll probably end up using
the PG58 for everything except background vocals where we'll have 3 or 4
of us standing around the Zoom in a 120-degree pattern.
Why not use the zoom as a microphone and record it with the fasttrack?
If you can't turn off the hw-monitoring on the zoom, make it a feature. Connect
the outputs of the zoom to the inputs of the fasttrack. Then you get the mics
and pre-amps of the zoom and the convenience of the fasttrack. And if you
press the record-button of the zoom, you get a backup recording as a bonus.
PS: I would love to say I couldn't differentiate between the pg58 and my little
studio-projects condenser-mics. But even the difference between the pg and an
sm is obvious when you have both on stage through a pa...
Not to me. I'm not an audio engineer, I have tinnitus, and my ears are shot from 25
years of playing music.
The only difference I can definitely hear is between any dynamic mic and a large-diaphragm
condenser like the MXL 990 which I owned briefly a few years ago. But I can't tell the
difference between that MXL into a FastTrack and, say, my friend's Neumann through a
tube preamp.
-ken
2:08 p.m.
New subject: OT - Ear Protection [was: Which crappy mic...]
On 21 March 2010 at 17:32, Ken Restivo <ken(a)restivo.org> wrote:
Not to me. I'm not an audio engineer, I have
tinnitus, and my
ears are shot from 25 years of playing music.
The only difference I can definitely hear is between any
dynamic mic and a large-diaphragm condenser like the MXL 990
which I owned briefly a few years ago. But I can't tell the
difference between that MXL into a FastTrack and, say, my
friend's Neumann through a tube preamp.
It's really sad when I learn of anyone's hearing loss. I'm a
drummer for 32 years now. For the last 31 of those years I've
been using ear plugs, first the store bought kind for musician's,
and for 7-8 years now I've been using custom fit musician
earplugs with interchangeable attenuators. Normally, I use 25dB
attenuators. But, I also have 10dB and 15dB attenuators. Those
were US$100, but that's way cheaper than a new pair of ears. I
wear those when playing and when I'm at a concert or around
anything loud that I want to hear, just more quietly.
Both of my kids (6 & 8 years old) have been learning to play
drums since about 14 months old. They each use machinist ear
muffs, with 30dB isolation, when they play, or when they're
around loud sounds.
I can still tell the difference between my MXLs, AKGs, Audixs and
my friend's Neumann and Audio Technica, which all sound great,
but different. Protect what you have, or what you have left.
All the best to you all!
--
Kevin
3:56 p.m.
New subject: OT - Ear Protection [was: Which crappy mic...]
On 23 March 2010 01:08, Kevin Cosgrove <kevinc(a)cosgroves.us> wrote:
I can still tell the difference between my MXLs, AKGs,
Audixs and
my friend's Neumann and Audio Technica, which all sound great,
but different. Protect what you have, or what you have left.
Plus, extra care when you're young. Because you might regret taking
your hearing for granted as we all lose 1Hz a day. That of course,
hasn't made any old-timer audio engineer quit what he does best, and
neither has tobacco nor alcohol.
A very interesting case I've seen (and heard) firsthand is that of an
engineer who does it best after a smoke (or rather, he can't do
anything without a smoke). In case you didn't know already, smoking is
supposed to hamper hearing by a significant margin, more than
intoxication.
1) Don't listen to music with headphones while letting everyone else
around a 10-metre radius know what you're doing.
2) Don't use cotton buds for ear-cleaning, visit a professional (maybe
$15 a month). I have had blood on my buds before and I can only guess
how much damaged my ears are now. It's probably why I'm very bad with
frequencies at extreme ends.
--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
4:03 p.m.
New subject: OT - Ear Protection [was: Which crappy mic...]
On 23 March 2010 02:55, Ray Rashif <schivmeister(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Plus, extra care when you're young. Because you
might regret taking
your hearing for granted as we all lose 1Hz a day.
Pardon the absurd number, that can't be true, though it's a gradual
loss. I don't know where I've heard this for it to have made it out of
my brain onto the keyboard without any parsing.
--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
5305
days inactive
5309
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
19 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
Arnold Krille -
Brent Busby -
Charles Henry -
Gordon JC Pearce -
Jan Depner -
Jonathan Gazeley -
Ken Restivo -
Kevin Cosgrove -
Leo -
Lorenzo -
Philipp -
Ray Rashif -
Tapani Sysimetsä -
Viktor Mastoridis