OK, here we go.

I see no one has dared to say which is which, so let me be the first to make a fool of themselves.

The first phrase is the SM57 and the second is the Rode NT1A.

If you want to keep the game going, Dan, please PM me to stop my curiosity eating me up!

ROG.

Oh, sorry, I didn't notice that I had not indicated. I didn't mean to test anyone! My voice is way to narly to use as a test standard..

The vocals begin and end with the Rode. I panned it a little left on my system.

Rode claim, " warmth , extended dynamic range, clarity and SPL capabilty only featured by some of the most expensive mics ..."

Shure the SM57, "...exceptional for musical instrument pickup and vocals. With its bright, clean sound and contoured frequency response, the SM57 is ideal for live sound reinforcement and recording."

So in my naive judgement, warm verus bright distinquishes the mics. Also the Shure appears to add some extra "color" to the sound which is not present in the Rode. I like the new Rode better in this example, hence, why I am glad in the investment for the studio.

So maybe wen need a real sound engineer to tell us what we should be listening for here. And if it is actually heard in this simple example.

Arghhh!

ROG.

I would have said the Rode first, only because the high end is "edgier" than the 2nd one....after that it would have been a guessing game really.

You may want to check your left/right connections if the description is accurate.
You said vocals start and end with Rode mic panned left.
However here the vocals start/end on right side.

When I first read it I thought the SM57 was on the right side .. but then I read the order of vocals for L/R. Something is not hooked up right. Either here or there.

First vocal (MR weather man) starts on right side here.

May explain ROG's confusion.
SM57 did a fine job never the less. Rode may need a little more preamp to appreciate it. As mentioned above by someone else, the 57 seems to be a little hotter, judging from the sound.
just MHO

I hear the little things like consonants better on the Rodes (to be expected) but since the 57 appears hotter it sounds very live and responsive.
Weird how one comparison like this can really blur the lines.

Here is a quick Specs overlay of both mics:


Regarding the L/R - this always confuses me since, first I an not sure if it refers to stage L/R or audiance L/R , and I only get my wiring correct 50% of the time.

Nevertheless, the Intro Phrase, "Mr. Weatherman", is the Rode.

The real problem here was setting the mics up outside and catching the thunderstorm!!

The left and right on my system are the same as rharv, so you might want to look at that again, Dan.

Having said that, what really had me fooled was the high frequency response of the Rode. It certainly sounded less bright to me than did the SM57, which is the opposite of what I would have expected. I'm a great fan of the SM57, but I know it rolls off very fast above about 8K, much earlier than most condensers. At the same time, I must confess that I've never used a Rode mic at all, so it's useful to hear the comparison.

Thanks, Dan.

ROG.

Actually, using an .mp3 to shoot out between mics is a bit unfair. Here's why; most .mp3 codecs if not all, have a upper frequency response somewhere shy of 20kHz, if I recall correctly. Note that the SM57 response is greater than 0dB, meaning a boost, from about 2 kHz all the way well past 10 kHz, whereas, the Rode is nearly flat UNTIL about 14 kHz, where it then shows a bump. The SM57 is greater than 0dB from about 2 kHz all the way up to 15-16 kHz (difficult to read correctly on the log plot - but visible in greater detail on the .pdf: http://www.shure.com/idc/groups/public/documents/webcontent/us_pro_sm57_specsheet.pdf )

This would make the SM57 seem 'hyped' in the high end of the available spectrum in the .mp3 file compared to a more flat response of the Rode. The SM rolls off below 200 Hz, but most people high-pass recordings for vox between 100 and 200 Hz, so this wouldn't be necessarily apparent.

Also take into account that many people have some age-related loss in the region where the two mics differ, particularly where the RODE shows a non-flat response in the teen kHz region, though it's pretty doggoned flat for a music microphone. You don't see much more flat response than that except with measurement microphones.

Regardless, trying to do a shootout with out simultaneous recording at each mic's optimal position makes this kind of an exercise difficult, and lossy compression throws another curve into the situation that makes it difficult.

Is it something to worry about - not at all.

-Scott

OK some general hearing facts, I think we've been over this.

I cannot hear squat over 20kHz no matter how loud it gets. About the top 13 keys on an 88.

But I can tell you this. Compression makes TV incomprehensible to me. No consonants at all.

I need the closed captioning. Some of that is quite odd too. All wrong guesses. I think the sports is the best, they have to program in certain names, cause we have southern born announcers like Buck Martinez for the Jays and he can say Adeiny Hechavarria, and it comes out right, and there is no way the computer does that without some programming. But other shows have really crazy stuff.

ANYways, I don't understand the radio. I can't get what squeaky women say. I mean catch, who understands them anyway. (Now I'm Dangerfield!)

So explain that in a mic? Does it crack out the sibilance so you guys get it? Does the other mic loose the th or f's and c's. Heck a woman might say the magic words like containing _u__ o__ which I hear as u o and it was the travel and fornication bit.

So then the mic is good, the what about the pre-amp? Then the amp? Then the speakers? Then the environmental noises. And of course the crunch of the gravel as the tractors head back to the house after a day out in the field, right past the bar.

But all you spring type poo-lays, (french for barnyard fowl), have fantastical hearing.

Well, son, I say well son, speak up! Ya'll can really hear that stuff? I'm thinking of sticking with Jim Reeves and Geo Beverley Sahy something.

Have at 'er. The shootout of gear for old guys playing a bar. If the mic does your vocal range, are you playin' that bass past the bottom fret agin? Are you fiddling with the little string whilst scrapin? Furry is scratchin' his leg and playing that note at the bottom? Oh, alrighty then.

So, take one or two old rockers, the output of Band in a Box, a mic, and what freq range matters. Add in the other gear and convince me.

As for me, I'm still looking for the dang beer I opened 3 hours ago. I hope it warmed up. It's freaking cold here again, the furnace is going full blast and I'm wishing I had some coal. It did used to make a mess out of the house though, according to Mom, the day after it went down the chute into the basement. They got the truck stuck in the yard in the rain once, and the next day brought a horse to pull it out.

BTW, notice there is no seniors discount for Brand in a balk?

I lost my wallet today, and found my long lost car keys in the car. Why they were there only he knows.

The left speaker is the dynamic mike and the right speaker is the condenser mike.
Right?

What have you left out?

Peter Panned them after tinkering with the cowbell, get the hook!

Double entendre is not dead, it's stere-air-ee-oh!

Nobody else mentioned it but I heard some heavy ess rumble or distortion on the left one and the one you ended with. Try using a pop filter and/or back off from it a little bit.

With my new mic (different brand not a Rode) the thing I'm personally most excited about is finally I have GAIN - GLORIOUS GAIN! LOL! I can sing close or stand back. It is so great not having to turn up the gain so much or worrying about adding noise having to deal with a too low level. Maybe you didn't have this problem but I always did when recording with my Shure SM58. So I'm excited for us both.

You'll find your sweet spot.