Well, even though they're the same microphone with the same capsule, just a different head design, I'm pretty sure I'm talking about the 58 considering it's designed with vocals in mind ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle.
Printable View
Well, even though they're the same microphone with the same capsule, just a different head design, I'm pretty sure I'm talking about the 58 considering it's designed with vocals in mind ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle.
that might be the case but the 58 and the 57 have a different pick up pattern, they have a different frequency response
That's strange considering they're both cardioid!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33QPLbQi9FI
Another reason I love the 58. My stock has survived numerous drops, I even dropped one from a catwalk just because I could and it stood up to it fine. Amazing microphones.
Correct but anyone knows that you get a different frequency response as they have different heads.
Plus it clearly states it on their site.
Hence why I prefer the 58. From testing on a snare for the lack of a better mic, a headless 58 sounds the same as a 57 to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle.
Anyway, edit to this, this is going wildly offtopic. What I'm saying is that for the same money, the quality from a 58 would be vastly superior to a crappy large diaphragm condenser microphone. If the budget was much higher, yeah, I would spec something different, but sub-£100 there's no other choice but a 58 tbh.
or a thomann t.bone ;)
Most likely not. I bet it sounds nasty.
Have a look on their website. Their demo's speak for the quality :)
I feel they sound pretty harsh. Nothing to the smooth, rich sound of a 58.Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle.
I think it really depends what your doing with the mic Matt.