The trend since the late 90's has been and still is bigger louder more. Thus having to over compress to achive gain, which in turns lowers the headroom and the dynamic range, for better or worse.
To add insult to injury the already smashed mix is then compressed again in mastering and once more in conversion to MP3 and yet again when it's finally played over the radio - air waves. Sure makes all that 192K sample rate worth it just to be mixed down to 44.1 redbook 16, then lossy compression as it's raped and convered to an MP3 and smashed out of a tower at a 40:1 limiting compression to your stereo.
You can hear this on trend if you listen to a radio station that plays a mix of the 70's, 80's, 90's and today. the volume will lower on older songs.
Yea, the levels of compression are ridiculous on a lot of later recordings. Listen to Buddy Guy's Heavy Love. It is the most overly compressed album that I know of. Especially the title track.
It's funny, so much of the music is in the dynamics, yet the competition to be the loudest thing slamming out of the car speaker wins every time. I wonder if the artists are as disgusted as I am when there tracks get squashed?
I'm looking forward to the Rocky Mountain Audiofest this month. It will be my chance to bathe myself in some very high end, pristine audio and cleanse myself of the MP3 filth that is so prevalent today. Can't wait!
a good example of intentional use of compression would be the George Clinton produced Red Hot Chili Peppers - Mothers Milk. on an RTA it's almost a solid bar the whole time across all freq. But due to the style of heavy slap bass and accent guitar it works.
Television commercials / addvertisements are the worst. Just watch a station that blends national and local and listen to the volume shift between program and adds.
I think as technology gets better sample rates and playback platforms. fidelity and dynamics will matter again. most likely they will develop a way to make a platform louder and thus giving more room for suttle breath. It may become law that you can't be louder then "X" I know they are trying to make it law on Advertisements on Television.
But the current thinking is if it's not good make it loud. My average mix is spread out over 120+ ch. and 2/3rd have some sort of compression. It's not so much a personal choice as it is the "industry standard" At the end of the day it's all got to conform to be marketable.
OK, back to the original question for a moment... The Beta 58 is pretty crispy realtive to a 58, so I think you are there. As to the condensors mics in general, using them for live shows, in fact, they have so much top end that it is pretty hard to stop feedback. Especially if you are a bar band running your own sound and you sit the mains relatively close to the players. But then you can get a feedback eliminator unit and go with that, etc., but why bother? Really, the idea of dynamics in a band has to come up when the vocalist is struggling. Yeah, and an immature drummer running ear plugs is like giving an angry 15 year old an AK47 with 10 full clips - the whole groove dynamic is gone. So, I am saying you prolly have the mic, a band meeting is next...
As to the Audix mics, IMHO, they have a fatal flaw: no bass proximity. Try this for yourself, compare a 58, Beta or otherwise, and an Audix 0M2 or OM3. Get close to the mic and then back away. With the Shure product you will always have that added boost of bass as you choke the mic, not the Audix. Now, some singers are running a compressor and this isn't going to matter so much, but if you are not, then that added boost can really be a good tool - especially for a singer that knows how to use it. Since I do not run a vocal compressor, I much prefer the Shure product over Audix. And FWIW, I have seen guys lose their voice in two sets trying to use the Audix without a compressor. They just kept trying to get that little boost that their old 58 gave them but it wasn't there - so they kept trying to make it happen with the Audix - but it wouldn't happen.
And sure, if you are running sound, and the venue is big enough, a compressor (quality compressor) is necessary. But in a 30 seater bar, well, good luck on dailing that in. Eh, OK, my .02.
Most people stall out when fixing a mistake that they've made. Why?
I have recently had a conversation with a friend of mine that owns a local sound company. His answers really parallel yours rooster. Get the wrong voice on a Beta87 and you hear nothing but sssssss and consonants. The audix is great for a loud stage where the vocalist eats the mic but back away from it and all punch n balls is gone. I use the mic. Low notes, eat the mic-screaming high notes or light harmonies-2 feet away. Acoustic night is the only place I might use the beta87a. You are right. I think I have the correct mic for me. I think I just had mic envy for a minute.
just to be mixed down to 44.1 redbook 16, then lossy compression as it's raped and convered to an MP3 and smashed out of a tower at a 40:1 limiting compression to your stereo.
