The only thing I can say about microphones is that when I was recording bands in
the 1970s, we mostly used Shure SM57s and SM58s. They were expensive but
unbelievably rugged. You could use a cheap condenser microphone to mike up a
flute or for "filling in", but the SM57s always sounded better when miking up
acoustic guitars, drums, etc. I never found anything as good as the SM58s for
vocals.

I guess there must be newer, cheaper mikes around now, but I'm out of touch with
modern studio equipment.

--
Rexx


> On 27 July 2016 at 16:01 geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 22 July 2016 at 22:40, Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net> wrote:
> >
> > If you want something that can cover the whole range, then Sigma do some
> > quite nice superzoom lenses - I've been using an 18-200mm stabilised lens as
> > my every-day lens on my 60D since 2010. There's a newer (2012-era) 18-250mm
> > lens that looks better:
> > https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-18-250mm-f-3-5-6-3-dc-macro-os-hsm-lens-review-19470
> > costing around £200-£280 - but I'm a bit out of date on the newest lenses...
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
>
> Well that would certainly solve the problem of providing a decent
> reach without lens duplication although I'd be surprised if it didn't
> distort a fair bit at the wider end.
>
> And while I'll accept the blame this conversation has been largely
> about lenses. Anyone got anything to say about microphones?
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk