{"items": [{"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/240008519444814?comment_id=240009866111346", "anchor": "fb-240009866111346", "service": "fb", "text": "Richard, Danner: thanks for helping!", "timestamp": "1339381140"}, {"author": "Danner", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/240008519444814?comment_id=240010432777956", "anchor": "fb-240010432777956", "service": "fb", "text": "It was fun, I'll do it again if you have more set up.", "timestamp": "1339381262"}, {"author": "Yaron", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/240008519444814?comment_id=240032016109131", "anchor": "fb-240032016109131", "service": "fb", "text": "Some factors that may *really* affect the outcome are the type and quality of the mixer and amplifier; on a digital recording, the quality of the digitizer; the frequency range, type, and quality of the playback equipment. Or, they may not affect it so much - depends on the equipment and the microphones.
The recordings, to me, all sounded very much like \"home recordings\" - so it's a little hard for me to tell which issues were due to the mics and which were due to the recording process.
For the record, I listened to these on a pair of average-quality ear buds (which is pretty high these days, imho), plugged into my computer; the playback amplifier is whatever the heck is built into my motherboard.
Now: Another huge factor is personal taste. Case in point: The war between fans of the ol' workhorse, the SM58, and a new-ish competitor, the Audix OM2. I hate the SM58. I've never gotten sound out of it that I've found satisfying. And I swear by the OM2. I have 8 of 'em.
The main criticism that the OM2 gets is that it reproduces too much popping and ancillary breath noise. I, oth, like that fidelity - the SM58 filters out way too much of the sound for my taste - if I want some frequencies out, I'll equalize them out myself, thank you. The SM58 has what some call a \"warmer\" sound; I've long ago concluded that when people say \"warm,\" to me that equals \"lousy high-end response.\" I also believe you lose some of the \"flavor\" of the instrument with a mic that filters out in that way, as much of it can be in the higher harmonics. But then, the SM58 might be better for speech purposes, b/c many speakers (vs. singers, callers) don't know how to control their aspirated consonants, creating loud pops.
Condenser mics: Advantages are, supposedly, a very flat response (within their range); high SPL - thus an enhanced ability to differentiate dynamics (pianissimo vs. fortissimo) - which also makes them vulnerable in certain ways; longer range (can pick up sound from further away) - but often (esp. with lower end ones) the sound gets more tinny the further you are away. (Of course, condenser mics are also much less durable.)
Yes, dynamics tend to have a proximity bass effect - which can also be used to advantage... (Esp. if, like me, you enjoy a full, rich lower end...)
i58: I haven't looked it up, but since you say it's a \"cheap clone\" of the SM58, I'd guess that the only difference really is that it's medium-Z vs. a low-Z. (I have a \"Vtech\" branded \"cheap clone\" of the SM57, which is basically the same except it's med-Z.)(I rarely use it nowadays.)
Now - your recordings:
The mandlin recordings: I didn't feel there was any significant difference. I felt all were a little tinny. In the melody recordings, on #2, I felt the lower end was a little fuller. In the chord recordings, I felt that #3 was a little less crisp at the high end - but couldn't tell if that was your playing or the recording.
On the calling recordings, I felt that there were definite differences.
All recordings (imo) were lousy.
The worst was #3 - completely muffled; your breath is the most pronounced thing on the recording.
Next worst was #1.
Next was #2 - a little better; I enjoyed the rich bass - but really could use more high end; 's' sound (\"sibilants,\" I guess?) got pretty much lost
And least bad was #4 - least muddy, adequate 's'.", "timestamp": "1339385388"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/240008519444814?comment_id=240038762775123", "anchor": "fb-240038762775123", "service": "fb", "text": "@Yaron: \"The recordings, to me, all sounded very much like \"home recordings\" - so it's a little hard for me to tell which issues were due to the mics and which were due to the recording process.\"
Aside from any analog-to-digital issues of recording to the computer, everything else was set up pretty much exactly as I would have done it for a contra dance.
\"medium-Z vs. a low-Z\"
The specs for the i58 are: \"Frequency Response:50-14000Hz; Sensitivity:-74dB\u00b13dB; Impedance:600\u03a9\u00b130%\" I think 600\u03a9 would be \"low-Z\", though the sm58 spec sheet says \"Rated impedance is 150\u03a9 (300\u03a9 actual)\".", "timestamp": "1339386870"}, {"author": "peewinkle", "source_link": "http://www.reddit.com/r/audioengineering/comments/uvj4k#c4z7vq4", "anchor": "r-c4z7vq4", "service": "r", "text": "You would have to be blind NOT to be able to tell these mics apart. Deaf, too, if you can't tell them apart in a "shoot-out."\n\n
Blog spam, but I'm leaving it because it gave me a chuckle. \n\n\n
I hate the SM58. I've never gotten sound out of it that I've found satisfying. And I swear by the OM2. I have 8 of 'em. \n\n\n
O RLY?\n", "timestamp": 1339444917}, {"author": "cbr", "source_link": "http://www.reddit.com/r/audioengineering/comments/uvj4k#c4zcgm0", "anchor": "r-c4zcgm0", "service": "r", "text": "→ \n
Deaf, too, if you can't tell them apart in a "shoot-out."\n\n\n
I didn't have a good sense of how each one sounded before doing the tests, and I suspect that if I hadn't done it blind I would have been overly swayed by my preconceptions. I started off expecting the bg4.1 to sound really good for mandolin (because people had told me to try a condenser with it) and the i58 to sound pretty bad because it was ~$10. But I ended up really not liking the bg4.1 and thinking the i58 was decent.\n", "timestamp": 1339464755}, {"author": "Yaron", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/240008519444814?comment_id=241006006011732", "anchor": "fb-241006006011732", "service": "fb", "text": "I think 600Ohm is considered med-Z. But I could be wrong. But really that just affects the max length of cable you should hook it up to.
As for what I perceived as a \"home-recording\"-ness of the recordings... Maybe it's due to the audio h/w on your computer, maybe it's the s/w, or maybe it's just the mics...
Now, recreational folk dancers are generally not very picky at all about audio quality. For sure no one goes home saying, \"man, what a great band, what a great caller, but that lack of a crisp high-end on the mandolin, that killed it for me.\"
But the audio quality of the caller is probably more important - esp. at a dance that tends to draw less-experienced dancers, it helps that the syllables carry across clearly - and many halls have lousy acoustics to begin with.
I can lend you an Audix OM2 to play with if you want, to see if it works any better for you.
Also: Some callers like to hold the mic vertical, with the ball resting on their chin, which produces a sound quality that I personally don't like, but it might (don't know) reduce the bass proximity effect... (If I'm not mistaken, the main motivator for this is that it ensures the mic isn't too far from your mouth...)", "timestamp": "1339556661"}]}