I remember reading an article in some musician rag way back when ADAT's and Mackie boards were a new thing. The gist of it was that because of this new technology, now for the first time ever, it was easily possible to achieve recordings where the microphones and the recording media were able to reveal limitations of the room itself.
 
Before this point, the max clarity available in prosumer grade analog tape was simply too insufficient to really reveal just how ****ty your room sounded. So even with the best condenser mics available at the time, the room just didn't matter all the much unless you were spending well north of six figures on all the other gear involved.
 
But then the ADATs and Mackie boards changed all that and suddenly the room mattered. But here's the thing. Since that time, lots of very historically significant recordings have been made on that gear in living rooms and basements using lots of very good condenser mics.
 
Just because you're using a recording media that can reveal the limits of your room doesn't mean you should therefore only use mics that aren't able to reveal the limits of your room. It just means you have to be that much more talented at using the tools to capture as much of the good bits of the recording as possible while at the same time masking the limits of your room. And quite honestly, this is 100% true regardless of whether you're working in studio 1 at Abbey Road or your own basement half bathroom.
 
I mean when you get right down to it, that's exactly what we're talking about here. 'Oh my room sounds like crap so please recommend a mic that won't be able to capture that so accurately.' That's insane. Who in their right mind would want a mic that doesn't capture exactly what goes into it as accurately as possible? Use the best mics you have and best recording gear you have and whatever room you have and find a way to make it all work.

Hi. I will throw in the Heil Pro Audio PR40 as another dynamic mic into the equation.
https://www.amazon.com/PR-40-Dynamic-Studio-Recording-Microphone/dp/B000SOYOTQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=musical-instruments&ie=UTF8&qid=1488925703&sr=1-1&keywords=heil+pr+40
I have one, and love it. 
All the best.

timidi
Thanks guys. Yea, I've looked the SM7b. Probably the right idea. Gearslutz doesn't appear too keen on it.
 

FWIW, I believe most of Michael Jackson's vocals for Thriller were recorded with the SM7b.
Sold a few copies...  

This whole idea of condenser mics "hearing" the room more than dynamic mics never made sense to me unless you're talking about frequency response. If it's just sensitivity then reduce the gain of the loud mic and/or increase the gain of the quiet mic until post-gain sensitivity is the same. They should both be just as sensitive, right? It's gotta be a frequency response issue, doesn't it?

Condensers are generally more sensitive than dynamics, due to the tiny mass of the diaphragm you have to move versus the mass of a big coil of copper wire.
 
Common wisdom says you have to use a condenser for quality results, but that just ain't so, especially for male vocals. I think if you have an actual isolated and treated vocal booth, then yeh, use a condenser to get every nuance. But if, like so many hobbyists, you're recording in a bedroom, garage or basement, then you will get better results with a dynamic microphone. And, like Jim noted, an SM7 was used on all of M. Jackson's records. It's basically a hotter version of the SM58 with similar tone.
 
I have a booth with lots of absorption, but after Windows 10 killed my Tranzport it got to be a hassle to record myself back there. So I began experimenting with using my stage mic instead and positioning myself in front of a single baffle next to the computer keyboard. To my surprise, results were not only good, they required less post-processing. Nowadays if I'm recording myself, it's usually a plain ol' '58. The expensive condensers stay in their cases and only get pulled out for acoustic guitars.
 
I'd also add a thumbs up for the Heil that Zargg mentioned. I tried one at NAMM, with the PR40 in one hand and an SM58 in the other. The Heil's larger diaphragm made it incredibly smooth and more sensitive compared to the Shure. The only downside is they're more than 3x the price of a '58. 
 
BTW, Shure's got a new dynamic out called the KSM8 that looks really interesting. At $500 it's kinda pricey for a dynamic, but it supposedly has no proximity effect. I'd love to try one. I'm thinking it might be a great studio vocal mic that I could also use on stage.

fret_man
This whole idea of condenser mics "hearing" the room more than dynamic mics never made sense to me unless you're talking about frequency response. If it's just sensitivity then reduce the gain of the loud mic and/or increase the gain of the quiet mic until post-gain sensitivity is the same. They should both be just as sensitive, right? It's gotta be a frequency response issue, doesn't it?

 
Condenser mics capture more subtle detail.
ie:  If you have a nice condenser mic... and you have decent monitor level thru a nice set of headphones, you can touch your tongue to your upper pallet... and hear it in startling detail.
You won't get that level of detail with a SM58.  

timidi
Thanks guys. Yea, I've looked the SM7b. Probably the right idea. Gearslutz doesn't appear too keen on it.
 

And that's why it's a good idea to ask these questions on other forums. There are a lot of "opinions" on gear slutz. My favourite is how they will even bash companies like Yamaha?? It's just a few very vocal idiots and you can learn to filter out those comments.
 
I have owned many mikes over time. I recently bought a AT 2020 and I do like the way it records my vocals but as said, it not only records my vocals, it records every other grunt, lip smack and gurgling I make. I'm back to my Beta 58 which does the job without all that embarrassing noise. I've got my eye set on a Beta 87A.  http://www.shure.com/americas/products/microphones/beta/beta-87a-vocal-microphone

+1 SM7b (set to flat).
Depeche Mode - also shifted some albums