SM58 sounds very dull!

[Paul Seager]

I have a very low-key set-up: Ageing Win 10 laptop / Native Instruments Komplete Audio 1 / cheap monitors and AKG Headphones. I own a SM58 for live vocals and started using this for home-recording. I only record stuff to quality check myself, particularly vocals and normally I plug a Zoom hand-held recorder into the USB socket and just use that; ; Quick 'n Dirty but one also picks up a lot of room-noise and, as I'd like to create some rehearsal tracks for band members, I would prefer slightly better quality and separation; hence I am using the SM58 into the Komplete Audio and direct to PC-DAW (Audacity or Cakewalk)

The vocals simply sound muddy, muffled - choose your word! I don't EQ anything before the interface. I've tried increrasing the distance between me and the mike (not by much though). I've played with some post-recording effects that claim to clean up vocals but I assume, if the highs are not there in the recording then you cannot add them!

I can live with this but I am curious if a SM58 is simply not a great recording mike.

[mtulbert]

Paul

Not sure what is going on but the SM58 normally is a very good clean mic with nice frequency response.

Here is a video of our band at a gig that I recorded several years ago. All the vocals are sm58
If you can send me an audio clip so I can anlalyze it and see if we can determine what is happening.

regards,

Mark T

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWpv11PF3Lo

[Howard Parker]

What effects and eq are you applying to the vocal channel within the daw itself?? I suspect that you might not be applying inserts correctly on the vocal channel or buss.

That being said, you should be able to get a very "reasonable" sounding vocal with a SM58, in spite of it's well known midrange "bump". If for some reason it's just the SM that doesn't do it for you the beta58 has modestly better characteristics.

Of course there are far..far better vocal mics then either I suspect that your solution rests within the daw settings.

h

[Paul Seager]

What effects and eq are you applying to the vocal channel within the daw itself??

Nothing! Just plugged it in, checked the level and hit the red button!

As I mentioned, it's not stopping me from achieving my goal, I was just surprised that it was so dull!
I've borrowed an Allen Heath ZED mixer with a built-in USB interface. I'll try eq'ing before it gets to the DAW.

[Howard Parker]

If you have the interface you can do the rest of it 100% within the DAW.

But, try it your way. You may like the results.

No wrong answer.

h

[Rick Campbell]

Sometimes latency can make things sound muddy on your input monitoring. However, it should not be present on playback. Hope you find the problem and get it fixed.

RC

[Paul Seager]

Hi there- Thanks for all the replies. I decided to follow Howard's advice, stay with the basic set up and see what I could learn from the Cakewalk DAW, check out EQ etc.. However, working through the vocalist presets, I couldn't notice any substantial difference . (yes the EQ was active, I tried some whacky settings!)

Then I realised that I had only been listening to my vocals through headphones. Normally if I prepare a backing track for instrument practice, then I'll playback through monitors but, as I am only quality checking my vocals, not recording for a long-term purpose, I had not used the monitors - to be fair to myself, this is generally how I work when using a Zoom handheld. I recorded again and played everything back through monitors and the vocals had far more clarity. So first problem identified, the headphones - 20 year old AKG K99's - are not great for recording but ok for guitar practise.

Next I started experimenting with mike distance and found that a gap of about 20cm / 4" gives more clarity without losing too much gain. Back to the Cakewalk EQ, I guess I have to admit that I am too impatient to play around with these things, simply because it's time I would prefer to dedicate to practice. So instead I put a TC Mic Mechanic (my live tool) into the signal chain with the auto Tone switched on and now I am getting far closer to what I want!

Thanks again!

[Dave Grafe]

Not sure what is going on but the SM58 normally is a very good clean mic with nice frequency response.

Um, no, sorry. The Shure SM57 is severely compromised in frequency response due to being a live vocal mic designed to emphasize high-mids for clarity on stage and to minimize feedback and handling noise in live environments. While some folks will be satisfied with it every single design criteria runs counter to the requirements of a good recording microphone, and compared with the cheapest mics from Audix, EV, Sennheiser, Beyer, etc. the SM57 is definitely muddy sounding even in stage use.

If you have to own one mic only for recording of vocals, guitars, horns, percussion, and everything else find a decent Sennheiser MD421 for the best results all around. You can find cheaper mics, and quite a few large-diameter condensers are extremely versatile if used intellectually but if you only have one mic the Senn 421 simply can't be beat.

[Ian Rae]

What Dave says. The SM57/8 is a close-working mic for use with PA. As well as the Sennheiser, there are loads of good reasonably-priced condensers around these days,

[Paul Seager]

Thanks Dave & Ian. I understand your comments and, should I get serious about recording the Sennheiser would be a first choice. However for my current needs, I'll comprimise on tone and put up with what I have.

Actually, yesterday I was sketching out some new songs with a mando / bluesharp player and a metronome. I used my Zoom H1 as mic and interface to the PC. It wasn't great but the vocals sounded somewhat brighter than my attempts with the '58. Perhaps we should return to the "everyone stand around the mic" technique!