I honestly have know idea which mic is which.....  but I like mic 2 the best.  I thought it had more definition.

I am listening on cheaper speakers at the moment & I will say I agree that mic 2 was the best perfomance pitch wise.... I think it's because of the extra bit & the fact that the "am I singing" part is a bit louder an more consistent with the rest of it, that I keep liking mic 1 better. Just a personal preference. I like gritty though, but other than the pitchyness on the last word I like the character of this one (mic 1)through these speakers.

On 1st listen with the mix mic 2 seemed the lowest of the 3 which means if the levels were matched, it was the smoothest or most evenly eq'd/reproduced of the 3. but I don't know if that means it was the real expensive one. I like that I can't tell a blatant difference though there is a huge difference in the gear.

#1 Sounded like a Rode mic and might fit better in context with the mix but on it's own (solo'd) you need to be a little more closer to the mic or do another take (double)!  
 
#2 Nice. Had the characteristics of a dynamic mic and seems like you are singing closer to the mic. In context with the mix it could get a little lost in some parts but that can easily be resolve with the right tools and settings in the mix. 


#3 is the least I liked it made your voice sound nasal. Possible filter settings perhaps? 

Overall #2 for lead vocal, solo and quieter passages. #1 with music and good choice for harmonies. I would double track #1 and #2 (record 2 tracks separately) and blend them together as one lead vocal. Done in such a way that nobody will know they are two separate tracks.  There are minor pitch issues with your vocal delivery; you tend to ride-up to the note but this is a very minor critique. 

I like my Neumann U87AI, and my Mojave Audio condensers... It's hard to go wrong if you spend money? You can get good mics for less $$ too? I know. But I also know, if you spend the $$? You can get some really nice shizzy...

Interesting replies coming through. There is obviously a resounding yes for mic #2. I'll wait a little longer and post the results and what I thought about it tomorrow. I'm sure you'll find it interesting.

I have added one more mic from home to this. I felt I had better get all of my mics into this (actually I am leaving out one - but that's cause I really hate it - it's Behringer...)

Number 2 is quite clearly the best of the first three, so I'm interested to see what you think of it VS number 4. Mic numbers have not changed, I simply added mic 4.

I'll reveal in about 12 hours from now what everything was. I'm curious to see what you think of Mic 4. I can't actually quite decide between it and mic 2. Both sound very similar to me.

http://soundcloud.com/mattlyonsmusic/sets/studio-vs-home-shootout

Hello Matt, i thoughtmic 2 sounded full and clear. Mic 4, with a bit of minor eqing, would sound great too, imo.

I agree with SongCraft. 
 
IMO, mix 1 worked the best is the context of the song.  It had more edge which I believe was appropiate for the song. 
 
Solo #2 sounded the smoothest but unfortunately got lost in the mix.  Maybe mix #2 wasn't mixed correctly, but that can easily be fixed.

Alright, thanks for listening people. I know it wasn't an ideal 'shootout' in any way due to such different performances, but I think there is stuff to learn. Biggest one for me is this goes to show just how important the performance really is. The mic can add something, but at the end of the day, if you sing bad, it'll be bad. This really emphasises even those subtle changes in singing can make all the difference. Secondly, it seems the studio versions vs home versions aren't really that much different.Only Jimmy had a guess I think as to which was home and he got it wrong (he chose the $7000 mic as the cheap home recording!) I think that really shows a lot at home good home gear has become. Anywho, results:

Mic 1 - Condenser - Neumann M149 - Studio
Mic 2 - Dynamic - Shure SM7b - Studio (I assume it was an SM7b, but it could have been an SM7, not shure - like my pun there?)
Mic 3 - Tube Condenser - Rode K2 - Home (Performance was a bit iffy on this one and I think it sounded boxy - not sure if that was a combination of the tube and my acoustic treatment or what, but that's what I hear)
Mic 4 - Dynamic - SM58 - Home


Raw, I like the Neumann the most. I think it sounds like the most expensive mic. It sound the most detailed. But on my voice, the SM7 suited it better. I think in the mix the Neumann got masked and didn't fit in so well. It was lacking mids I thought and sat in the highs and lows with the rest of the other instruments. The SM7 punched out in the middle. I thought the K2 punched out in the middle a bit better than the Neumann too, but not so sure on the top end of it. It may be that I was just singing bad though. I had to try the SM58 following the resounding consensus for the SM7. I think they sound very similar. The SM7 sits a little higher in it's peak than the SM58. I don't know which I like more. But I think the differences between these would be quite easy to get with a bit of eq. But I don't think eq would work to get what these mics have if I used the other mics. They are just too far off.

My conclusion, I'm not going to worry about a studio, it doesn't seem worth it for the huge extra cost. I'll probably use a bit of the SM58 and K2 depending on the song or even section of the song. Maybe even double mic and blend if appropriate. I would have never even tried the SM58 if I didn't spend time in the studio so I'm glad that I did!


Little interesting facts for those who don't know, Bono from U2 regularly uses an SM58 in the studio (and many many others do too), and Michael Jackson regularly used an SM7 too, as well as a huge number of other people. Goes to show that cheap dynamics can give a pro result too. Whatever works, works.