AudioMasters
 
 User Info & Key Stats   
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
July 30, 2010, 11:43:24 AM
70766 Posts in 7409 Topics by 2232 Members
Latest Member: Beriganfan
News:       Buy Adobe Audition:
+  AudioMasters
|-+  Audio Related
| |-+  Radio, TV and Video Production
| | |-+  Do you think getting this mic will improve the sound of my voice?
  « previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author
Topic: Do you think getting this mic will improve the sound of my voice?  (Read 6131 times)
« on: August 05, 2008, 03:48:28 PM »
volitales Offline
New Member
*
Posts: 8



Right now im using a crappy probably 1998 mic used to online chat and stuff. I tried recording with it, and it sounded horrible.

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2257359&tab=custRatings#showReviews

^^ thats the mic im thinking about getting to record on my computer. I'm not a bad singer at all but for some reason that old mic makes me sound bad.
Logged
Reply #1
« on: August 05, 2008, 04:20:08 PM »
runaway Offline
Member
*****
Posts: 532

WWW

My guess it sounds like a $25 mic

While the mic is not the only thing that needs to be addressed with any vocal recording it is certainly a big part of it.

Where I come from there used to be a motorcycle safety commercial on TV urging riders to wear good quality helmets and it went something like 'wear a $10 helmet for a $10 head'.

You don't need to spend a fortune on an expensive mic there are many good inexpensive ones and I suspect using a mic like that will make it real hard to get a good recording.
Logged

Reply #2
« on: August 05, 2008, 05:48:03 PM »
Randy Lahey Offline
Member
*****
Posts: 48



Radioshack is good for batteries, but not too good for mics. 

But with that being said, I think this would probably be better than what you have now, assuming you're using a headset mic, or an old 10 dollar mic that came with your computer 10 years ago.   But if you want to record vocals, even just for fun, that $25 dollar Radio Shack Mic probably won't cut it. 

The cheapest setup these days, and the market seems to be growing everyday, is entry-level usb Condenser mics.   I know Samson makes one I've heard good things about, and also Audio Technica just released their 20/20 model as a USB mic. 
I believe both of these are around $200.   I know, quite a bit more than the RadioShack mic but well worth it. 

It all depends on what you're looking for.  Myself, I had to spend a little more on my mics because those USBs wouldn't cut it for me, but for someone just starting out, they'd be perfect.   And for your needs, maybe that Radioshack one will be all you need. 

The point is...you usually get what you pay for.

Good luck.

Randy. 
Logged
Reply #3
« on: August 05, 2008, 09:11:57 PM »
Wildduck Offline
Member
*****
Posts: 724



And even the Radio Shack ad says something like "Not suitable for singing".

I'd suggest reading the archives here and elsewhere and then working out why your present mic sounded horrible, then starting to assemble the best mic/machine input combination that you can afford.
Logged
Reply #4
« on: February 07, 2009, 07:54:12 AM »
Liquid Fusion Offline
Member
*****
Posts: 1213

WWW

Sure SM58 mics are ~ 100.00 and the standard for rock.

Invest in yourself....
Logged

Reply #5
« on: February 07, 2009, 01:20:27 PM »
Graeme Offline
Administrator
Member
*****
Posts: 2238

WWW

Despite the fact that LD condenser mics are the current fashion, for vocal work it's hard to beat either a Shure SM7B or EV RE20 - either one of these will serve you very well indeed.  Not 'cheap', but excellent value for money.  Don't forget the old adage, "buy cheap, buy twice".

Personally, I'd avoid any USB mic like the plague.  Apart from the fact they all seem to be built down to a price, one day, you'll be looking at mixers or pre-amps and a USB mic will probably end up in the closet.
Logged

Reply #6
« on: February 07, 2009, 02:56:17 PM »
runaway Offline
Member
*****
Posts: 532

WWW

Is this one of those old posts problems?

August 6th then Feb 7th?
Logged

Reply #7
« on: February 07, 2009, 03:28:41 PM »
SteveG Offline
Administrator
Member
*****
Posts: 9584



Is this one of those old posts problems?

August 6th then Feb 7th?

If it's less than (I think) 200 days, then the warning doesn't pop up. That appears to define what an 'old' post is - maybe it's set too long?
Logged

Reply #8
« on: February 07, 2009, 04:18:16 PM »
Despised7 Offline
Administrator
Member
*****
Posts: 1218

WWW

Looks like it's set to 120 days.
Logged

Reply #9
« on: February 07, 2009, 11:15:14 PM »
SteveG Offline
Administrator
Member
*****
Posts: 9584



Looks like it's set to 120 days.

Well, I knew it was something with a 2 and a 0 in it!
Logged

Reply #10
« on: February 07, 2009, 11:19:28 PM »
Graeme Offline
Administrator
Member
*****
Posts: 2238

WWW

Mea culpa - I didn't notice the date,  Neither did Liquid Fusion, it would seem Smiley .
Logged

Reply #11
« on: February 08, 2009, 12:43:50 AM »
runaway Offline
Member
*****
Posts: 532

WWW

I'm certainly not pointing the finger I got caught a few days back on another thread  embarassed
Logged

Reply #12
« on: March 30, 2009, 02:37:46 PM »
diapason Offline
Member
*****
Posts: 47



I think you should try all the possibilities.  smiley
Logged

Linking Image" style="margin:14px;
diapason
E mail: diapason@digit-idea.com
ICQ: 290274
MSN: masheenH3ad@hotmail.com
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Ig-Oh Theme by koni.