|
Post by geoff738 on Aug 1, 2019 16:17:57 GMT -6
Other than ribbons, my fave mic for guitar cabs.
I’ve told this story before, but when I got my SM7 in the mid 90s, I did it because the RE20 seemed to be the internet favourite at the time and I wanted something different. Oh well, the SM7 did end up being useful so no regrets. The foam has totally disintegrated though.
Cheers, Geoff
|
|
|
Post by stratboy on Aug 1, 2019 16:51:33 GMT -6
THX for all your answers. Meanwhile, I had the genius idea (LOL) to ask YT and sure someone shows how it works on acoustic. Jesus Christ this thing kills out all room tone on ACC guitar exactly what I need for dealing with small bad sounding rooms. Yes. As others have said, use a booster. I use the one from Cathedral Pipes.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 1, 2019 17:01:32 GMT -6
Only if I wasn't already hooked on LDC's (and ribbons) and wanted a much simpler vocal life. ... SM7>SE Dynamite>my prosumer Pre's-either Mackie Onyx or the somewhat better Studio Projects VTB-1. Although the VTB-1 might be OK on a SM7 with a loud vocal-pretty clean gain there. This actually is an excellent choice of a vocal chain on me. For a Pre upgrade, probably would go GAP 73 DLX (stock transformer), and be able to save a $100 by ditching the Dynamite. FWIW I really enjoy Marshall Crenshaw's studio vocals, which AFAIK are all cut on a SM7. IMHO a it's particulary good vocal mic, on bright toned singers. Chris
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Aug 1, 2019 20:53:46 GMT -6
MD441 is a great dynamic but its usually at least twice the price. SM7B is a must if you have a bad room. Only if you're in the USA, which Mr. Holmes is not.
If you happen to be recording Michael Jackson. Are You?
Erm, no.
That makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by jamiesego on Aug 1, 2019 22:12:42 GMT -6
The room buildup makes plenty of sense to me. A dryer, tighter sound should be more upfront for something like a pop mix. Especially if the room is subpar and boxy sounding. What’s so hard to understand about that?
On the other hand I sometimes do the opposite and record a double a few feet back to give the vocal some space without using a reverb.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 1, 2019 22:28:02 GMT -6
Another singing approach is to be at a lower than expected volume (closer up) but with "intensity"... Then raise the volume during mixing. Worked for Tina Turner's "What's Love Got To Do With It"! Chris
|
|
|
Post by MorEQsThanAnswers on Aug 1, 2019 22:42:59 GMT -6
A mentor put it to me that an engineer needs at least 2 types of microphones in their arsenal:
1) A broad paintbrush
2) a thinner paintbrush
The broad paintbrush refers to extremely full frequency capturing mics like tube (if you can) LDCs, whereas as the thin brush refers to things like SM7Bs or an M160.
More directly to your question, they’re great. I’ve never heard anybody say anything bad about them, but I’ve definitely heard them say “it won the shootout over my 251/U47/(insert legendary LDC here)”
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Aug 2, 2019 3:35:19 GMT -6
THX for all your answers. Meanwhile, I had the genius idea (LOL) to ask YT and sure someone shows how it works on acoustic. Jesus Christ this thing kills out all room tone on ACC guitar exactly what I need for dealing with small bad sounding rooms. Yes. As others have said, use a booster. I use the one from Cathedral Pipes. Own the FET Head +20 db
|
|
|
Post by michaelcleary on Aug 2, 2019 8:15:16 GMT -6
MD441 is a great dynamic but its usually at least twice the price. SM7B is a must if you have a bad room. Only if you're in the USA, which Mr. Holmes is not.
If you happen to be recording Michael Jackson. Are You?
Erm, no.
That makes no sense.
why are you hung up on only Michael Jackson can use this mic? I have used it on my vocals as well as others with perfect results. It is my go to for a tight rock vocal sound. when I want bigger, I use my U67, when I want airy, I use my M149. When I stack a lot of vocals, I'm talking 50-60 tracks and sometimes more, My crappy room sneaks into the track. Multiply that by 50 and it sounds pretty bad. The SM7 greatly reduces the room bleed and therefore the exponential buildup. Does that make sense to you now?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2019 8:37:45 GMT -6
Only if you're in the USA, which Mr. Holmes is not.
If you happen to be recording Michael Jackson. Are You?
Erm, no.
That makes no sense.
why are you hung up on only Michael Jackson can use this mic? I have used it on my vocals as well as others with perfect results. It is my go to for a tight rock vocal sound. when I want bigger, I use my U67, when I want airy, I use my M149. When I stack a lot of vocals, I'm talking 50-60 tracks and sometimes more, My crappy room sneaks into the track. Multiply that by 50 and it sounds pretty bad. The SM7 greatly reduces the room bleed and therefore the exponential buildup. Does that make sense to you now? Beat me to it. I don't understand the condescension at all. Some of us rely on it as a tool that produces positive results consistently, as do A LOT more engineers. It's ubiquitous in studios for a reason. And it's a godsend for those of us that can't afford or justify the expensive of a $5-10,000 tube mic.
|
|
|
Post by MorEQsThanAnswers on Aug 2, 2019 8:51:16 GMT -6
On the other hand I sometimes do the opposite and record a double a few feet back to give the vocal some space without using a reverb. I’ve had a debate with myself as to if it makes sense to record vocals with a full frequency mic and doubles with an SM7B. From a spectral perspective, it makes sense because the lack of extended lows and highs separates the two and keeps the ears on the LV. From a “physical space” perspective, it seems ill-advised because the LDC tends to pick up more room. Maybe it depends on the room itself, how much reflection you’re actually picking up with that LDC, and how much reverb you want to use in post. More likely it probably depends on the sound you’re after and I need to experiment to learn the actual difference! Just thinking aloud! hahah
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Aug 2, 2019 9:13:27 GMT -6
Only if you're in the USA, which Mr. Holmes is not.
If you happen to be recording Michael Jackson. Are You?
Erm, no.
That makes no sense.
why are you hung up on only Michael Jackson can use this mic? I have used it on my vocals as well as others with perfect results. It is my go to for a tight rock vocal sound. when I want bigger, I use my U67, when I want airy, I use my M149. When I stack a lot of vocals, I'm talking 50-60 tracks and sometimes more, My crappy room sneaks into the track. Multiply that by 50 and it sounds pretty bad. The SM7 greatly reduces the room bleed and therefore the exponential buildup. Does that make sense to you now? You are of course correct about the room thing. There was never anything unclear or hard to understand about it at all.
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Aug 2, 2019 10:27:39 GMT -6
To the SM7b naysayers: If you don't like it don't use it--that's a stance I can respect. But I don't understand the need to tear it down like it's nothing better than a 57. Yes the SM7 has similar guts to a 57 but the end result is that it sounds nothing like it. I'll leave that explanation to someone who's more technically qualified than myself. Here's the thing from my perspective--singers really like the SM7. And not just rock and roll shouters. The mic's sound is very solid and focused and can work with all sorts of vocalists. It's also fine on amps and kick drum. I wouldn't turn to it for acoustic guitar--but maybe some day I will. And yes, price is a factor, as it is in most cases and for most of us. The SM7 is very high in the "bang for your buck" category. Here's a video of a track I produced a few years ago for singer songwriter Catie Curtis. It's an SM7b on her voice. If someone here doesn't like the vocal sound that's cool. But to my ears it worked.
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Aug 2, 2019 10:28:59 GMT -6
Other than ribbons, my fave mic for guitar cabs. I’ve told this story before, but when I got my SM7 in the mid 90s, I did it because the RE20 seemed to be the internet favourite at the time and I wanted something different. Oh well, the SM7 did end up being useful so no regrets. The foam has totally disintegrated though. Cheers, Geoff You can buy the foam sleeve replacement on the Shure site--it's not too pricey either.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Aug 2, 2019 11:21:17 GMT -6
why are you hung up on only Michael Jackson can use this mic? I have used it on my vocals as well as others with perfect results. It is my go to for a tight rock vocal sound. when I want bigger, I use my U67, when I want airy, I use my M149. When I stack a lot of vocals, I'm talking 50-60 tracks and sometimes more, My crappy room sneaks into the track. Multiply that by 50 and it sounds pretty bad. The SM7 greatly reduces the room bleed and therefore the exponential buildup. Does that make sense to you now? Beat me to it. I don't understand the condescension at all. Some of us rely on it as a tool that produces positive results consistently, as do A LOT more engineers. It's ubiquitous in studios for a reason. And it's a godsend for those of us that can't afford or justify the expensive of a $5-10,000 tube mic. John is never condescending.......
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 2, 2019 11:22:00 GMT -6
Keith Richards used it on his last solo album because he wanted to sing in the same open room as the band. Noel Gallagher did a PBS documentary where he used it for his live recording. So there's obviously situations it works well, and in those situations, better than other mics. Me, I never liked them, but there it is.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Aug 2, 2019 11:27:38 GMT -6
why are you hung up on only Michael Jackson can use this mic? I have used it on my vocals as well as others with perfect results. It is my go to for a tight rock vocal sound. when I want bigger, I use my U67, when I want airy, I use my M149. When I stack a lot of vocals, I'm talking 50-60 tracks and sometimes more, My crappy room sneaks into the track. Multiply that by 50 and it sounds pretty bad. The SM7 greatly reduces the room bleed and therefore the exponential buildup. Does that make sense to you now? You are of course correct about the room thing. There was never anything unclear or hard to understand about it at all. I think we can have a nuanced, thoughtful conversation about this. For the record, I like the mic and agree with Michael above. At the same time, it's worth noting that VO cut in a small, boxy sounding treated booth (random but hopefully illustrative example) will still sound "boxy" on an SM7. And you can't EQ it out either. Which is to say, it's a great tool, not a magic wand. And yes, SM7 haters tend to be major cork sniffers, but to some extent we need those people in audio.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 2, 2019 11:28:35 GMT -6
I've said it before here, if you see lots of bands come through who make fast recordings and you've never had a mic on the singer in question, the SM7 works fine 95% of the time, which is very hard to say for any other single vocal mic.
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Aug 2, 2019 13:35:21 GMT -6
Here's a video of a track I produced a few years ago for singer songwriter Catie Curtis. It's an SM7b on her voice. If someone here doesn't like the vocal sound that's cool. But to my ears it worked. Thanks for sharing. Haven't heard Catie for years. I used to work at WNKU and she was an artist we brought into town for listener appreciation concerts. She always put on a good show.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Aug 2, 2019 14:22:23 GMT -6
What bugs me about the "cult of the SM7" people is that they always act like it's the only highly directional dynamic in the world. The Beyer M88 is hypercardiod and is a hell of a better mic which is why it's popular with people like Phil Collins, David Bowie, Pat Benetar, and many, many others - probably more than use the SM7. The Electro-Voice RE10,11,15, and 16 series of mics are all supercargoes, as well as being Variable D. They're commonly used on television broadcast stages because of their tight rejection and smooth pickup pattern. The Beyer M160 ribbon is also a hypercardioid. Of course most of those mics aren't as blatantly "tech looking" so they don't stand out in photos or videos like an SM7 does. But I see a LOT more M88s.* There are a number of LDCs with continuously variable pickup patterns (usually selected on the power supply of a tube mic, not the mic itself, although there are also continuously variable FET mics. Continuously variable dual diaphragm condensers give you all the patterns, including super and hyper cardioid. My AKG C12A is such a mic. I almost never use the ultra tight patterns but if I need them they're there. I probably should pick up an SM7 just to have one in the locker, but I've got so many other mics that do the same thing and to my ear do a better job.
* - My guess that the answer to Mr Holmes' question about why he doesn 't seem to see many SM7s in the EU is that the price differential between the M88 and the SM7 is not nearly as great or may even be reversed on that side of the pond - M88s are expensive here and SM7s are cheap, and I know for a fact that Beyers are a lot cheaper in Europe. My guess is that Shures are more expensive.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Aug 2, 2019 14:33:13 GMT -6
You are of course correct about the room thing. There was never anything unclear or hard to understand about it at all. I think we can have a nuanced, thoughtful conversation about this. For the record, I like the mic and agree with Michael above. At the same time, it's worth noting that VO cut in a small, boxy sounding treated booth (random but hopefully illustrative example) will still sound "boxy" on an SM7. And you can't EQ it out either. Which is to say, it's a great tool, not a magic wand. And yes, SM7 haters tend to be major cork sniffers, but to some extent we need those people in audio. I don't think anyone ever implied the SM7 could completely eliminate a room, just that it works well at minimizing it. I was just affirming to the other poster that there was nothing hard to understand about his saying that and that the odd, smug response to it was...well, odd and smug.
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Aug 2, 2019 15:22:33 GMT -6
To the SM7b naysayers: If you don't like it don't use it--that's a stance I can respect. But I don't understand the need to tear it down like it's nothing better than a 57. Yes the SM7 has similar guts to a 57 but the end result is that it sounds nothing like it. I'll leave that explanation to someone who's more technically qualified than myself. Here's the thing from my perspective-- singers really like the SM7. And not just rock and roll shouters. The mic's sound is very solid and focused and can work with all sorts of vocalists. It's also fine on amps and kick drum. I wouldn't turn to it for acoustic guitar--but maybe some day I will. And yes, price is a factor, as it is in most cases and for most of us. The SM7 is very high in the "bang for your buck" category. Here's a video of a track I produced a few years ago for singer songwriter Catie Curtis. It's an SM7b on her voice. If someone here doesn't like the vocal sound that's cool. But to my ears it worked. Nice work! I've always loved Catie Curits! Let's not forget that Ethan Johns used an SM7 as the lead vocal mic on all the records he produced for Ray LaMontagne. A very versatile microphone.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 2, 2019 15:26:21 GMT -6
John is never condescending....... And women are NEVER sarcastic. Keith Richards used it on his last solo album because he wanted to sing in the same open room as the band. Noel Gallagher did a PBS documentary where he used it for his live recording. So there's obviously situations it works well, and in those situations, better than other mics. Me, I never liked them, but there it is. The tennis ball sized pickup pattern directly in front of the SM7 makes it a good tool for rejecting other sources, especially when used to record a guide or even keeper vocal live off the floor with a band. Well, that's all I got.
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Aug 2, 2019 15:27:13 GMT -6
To the SM7b naysayers: If you don't like it don't use it--that's a stance I can respect. But I don't understand the need to tear it down like it's nothing better than a 57. Yes the SM7 has similar guts to a 57 but the end result is that it sounds nothing like it. I'll leave that explanation to someone who's more technically qualified than myself. Here's the thing from my perspective-- singers really like the SM7. And not just rock and roll shouters. The mic's sound is very solid and focused and can work with all sorts of vocalists. It's also fine on amps and kick drum. I wouldn't turn to it for acoustic guitar--but maybe some day I will. And yes, price is a factor, as it is in most cases and for most of us. The SM7 is very high in the "bang for your buck" category. Here's a video of a track I produced a few years ago for singer songwriter Catie Curtis. It's an SM7b on her voice. If someone here doesn't like the vocal sound that's cool. But to my ears it worked. Man, I haven't heard Catie in years. She's such a good writer. Great sounds on that song, lpedrum!
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Aug 2, 2019 15:53:23 GMT -6
To the SM7b naysayers: If you don't like it don't use it--that's a stance I can respect. But I don't understand the need to tear it down like it's nothing better than a 57. Yes the SM7 has similar guts to a 57 but the end result is that it sounds nothing like it. I'll leave that explanation to someone who's more technically qualified than myself. Here's the thing from my perspective-- singers really like the SM7. And not just rock and roll shouters. The mic's sound is very solid and focused and can work with all sorts of vocalists. It's also fine on amps and kick drum. I wouldn't turn to it for acoustic guitar--but maybe some day I will. And yes, price is a factor, as it is in most cases and for most of us. The SM7 is very high in the "bang for your buck" category. Here's a video of a track I produced a few years ago for singer songwriter Catie Curtis. It's an SM7b on her voice. If someone here doesn't like the vocal sound that's cool. But to my ears it worked. Nice work.
The SM7B makes the LV very smooth sounding - not a bad thing in my ears.
|
|