Which of these 2 mics would you use for vocals, and why

[resolectric]

I'll be the first to say that specs on mics mean squat.....it's about how they sound, ya know?

Well, if you look at the complete specs (and you know what you are looking at), specs can tell you quite a bit. Unfortunately, you rarely see complete specs for a mic published for the public. Most of the time a lot of that info is kept in R&D. About all we ever see is a frequency response curve at a one or two positions and a polar pattern at one to three frequencies. So I guess that doesn't tell you much more than squat.

Phil

This just reminded me of a test i did months ago with an Oktava MK012 and a Behringer C2, both small condenser cardioid microphones.
The test is not meant to be taken as a scientific experiment with any value beyond the curiosity that lead me to doing it in the first place.

I did set the two microphones coincidentally, inside my studio's booth, opened the back door and just proceeded in capturing the ambient noise; road construction some 200 meters away, seagulls, maybe a cat... well, noise.

The left diagram is the Behringer, the right one is the Oktava.




The shaded line in the graph is a "3s memory". The peak around 4K must have been a seagull.

[echohaus]

I'm wondering if anyone here has pulled the transformer from a 57, and wired the capsule directly to the XLR. I've heard great things about this, and I've also heard some drums recorded with this, and the sound was pretty inspiring. I've got a handful of 57's and am about to perform this surgery on three of them, for my toms. Of course, the main immediate measure one has to take, when doing this, is to get a hefty preamp, 'cause you lose some output at the XLR... this would kind of fall in line with the OP's question as to what should be invested in, and parallel some of the other responses to invest in a better preamp.

A little disclosure is in order, too: I'm getting tired of 57's, honestly. To my ears, they're sounding a little too bland, these days. I had the interesting experience of tracking a band, a couple of years ago, that insisted on using 57's for everything--and I mean, everything--on an EP they hoped to release. They loved it, but I hated it. Everything sounded like it went through a 57. Ick.
Now, I understand why the transformer is in there, but the capsule, when allowed to breathe a little, appears to be a lot more interesting. A good preamp makes it more so.

[BradLyons]

If you need an SM57 type mic but sick of SM57's, take a look at the Audix i5.

[OldTimey]

I will never tire of the 57. it is my favorite mic ever. I bought one when I was 15 with my hard earned cash, and i love them. and not just for guitar cabs. I sing through them when playing with my band, i sing through them at clubs, and i sing through them when recording scratch vocals ALL the time. Sometimes, the scratch vocal ends up beating out any condenser mics i end up trying.

for recording guitars, through a half-decent pre like the FMR Audio RNP a GOOD guitar through a GOOD amp sounds great.

for vocals, through either a crappy pre, or something boutique, the sm57 is always flattering and wondrous for rock male vocals. to each their own.

[jeff sanders]

hey i can afford those shure mics! it sounds like 57s can do both guitar cabinets and vocals. do the 58s do anything the 57s cant? im asking because if getting one of each is better than 2 of the same then ill know what to buy. heres another duh question, does having a switch on those mics compromise the sound quality? thanks for any suggestions fellars.

[daniel.sneed]

Just a thought for the 57 and 58 fans, take a try at the great older ones :
- Shure 565 is much like a 58, but really brighter and more articulate, very nice on dark male voices and speak. Excellent for stage use.
- Shure 545 is much like a 57, but brighter and more articulate, nice on almost any medium instrument and voice. Just get a foam on it to use it close to the mouth.
They are still manufactured these days.

[jeff sanders]

Just a thought for the 57 and 58 fans, take a try at the great older ones :
- Shure 565 is much like a 58, but really brighter and more articulate, very nice on dark male voices and speak. Excellent for stage use.
- Shure 545 is much like a 57, but brighter and more articulate, nice on almost any medium instrument and voice. Just get a foam on it to use it close to the mouth.
They are still manufactured these days.

thanks for the suggestion. i see 545s are about the same price as 57s at musicians friend. hundred bucks is a great price for my budget. ebay has 565s. is there any obvious downsides to buying used mics? i mean besides the seller had bad breath heh

[resolectric]

... is there any obvious downsides to buying used mics? i mean besides the seller had bad breath heh

Older mics or mics with heavy usage may have damaged diaphragms or their properties changed with use, moisture, improper storage and a lot of other situations that may be part of a microphone's life.
If they're condensers or tube mics, active components may also change over time.

This, of course, putting aside all the possible situations where a mic doesn't work at all, is damaged, rusty, modified, cloned, fake, etc.

Used mics are not new. Take that in consideration when buying.

[jeff sanders]

... is there any obvious downsides to buying used mics? i mean besides the seller had bad breath heh

Older mics or mics with heavy usage may have damaged diaphragms or their properties changed with use, moisture, improper storage and a lot of other situations that may be part of a microphone's life.
If they're condensers or tube mics, active components may also change over time.

This, of course, putting aside all the possible situations where a mic doesn't work at all, is damaged, rusty, modified, cloned, fake, etc.

Used mics are not new. Take that in consideration when buying.

thanks for the answer. i kinda expected that might be the case.