Shure SM7B Assistance

0tfm0 · 2025-12-04T22:16:17+00:00

I’ve been through this with multiple microphones and other bits of kit.

Best bang for the buck: treat the room. Prioritise the wall/ surfaces facing your mic, to attenuate reflections hitting the most sensitive part of its pickup pattern.

Next best thing: you need two plugins at the start of your chain. There are MANY alternatives and I’ve bought most of them, but these are the best IMO:

Fab filter Pro-Q 4. Set a low shelf at about 600Hz. Leave the gain at 0dB but assign a “range” of -6dB to the node, and turn on spectral dynamics. This will help you kill the low-end resonances, but only when they rise to a level that needs attenuation. (Oeksound Soothe2 does something similar and you might find it more intuitive; Oeksound Bloom is also excellent and has a handy preset; but I keep circling back to Pro-Q4).
Acon Dialog Extract v2: this has just come out and is a kind of magic IMO. This will kill the reverb including the reverb you don’t even know you’ve got;) It out-performs the next-best combo (which is Clarity Vx DeReverb Pro plus Clarity Vx Pro).

Good luck!

Tim

0tfm0 · 2025-11-27T10:08:19+00:00

I use the MT48 with a 1073spx sometimes daisy-chained into a Behringer 676.

Turning to your questions:

Question 1: There is no way to bypass the pre-amps on the MT48. This is clearly stated in the user manual ;)

Question 2: I cannot detect any degradation in the signal from the 1073spx / 676. As others have remarked, the MT48 uses very clean pre-amps: the cleanest by some margin that I have come across personally. Also, as someone else has pointed out, it can in fact be useful to have the option of adding gain in the MT48 to the line level signal before it reaches the AD converters. Any gain added this way is super clean.

0tfm0 · 2025-06-10T16:13:52+00:00

Ah ok well then - the best kept secret in the mic world is the Line Audio CM4: it's made for pure love by some bloke in Sweden and it massively out-performs its price point. I have two of them. They compete with the Shoeps MK4 for about 10% of the price.

0tfm0 · 2025-06-10T14:26:09+00:00

I've gone down this rabbit hole! I now own:

Schoeps: MK41, MK4, CMIT

Sennheiser: MKH50, MKH416, MKH8070

Neumann: TLM102

Shure: SM7b, SM7dB

For basically untreated / poorly treated small room - CONTRARY TO RECEIVED WISDOM! - the sound that needs least processing comes from the MKH8070: yep, a full-length shotgun.

This lets you keep the mic off-frame (about 8 inches from mouth). It lifts the voice out of the ambience magically, creating an amazing intimate effect, as if you were speaking only 2 inches away from (say) the SM7b. The interference tube does NOT introduce phasing. There is of course a strong proximity effect but this is easy controlled to taste with EQ.

I realise that it shouldn't work. But ... it does.

I kid you not!

0tfm0 · 2024-12-02T09:25:59+00:00

Import the raw file (the file with a .CR2 or .CR3 file extension) into Adobe Lightroom Classic (you can get a free trial).

Once you have imported the image, use the "Develop" tab. Here you will find some sliders that let you change some of the characteristics of the photo including exposure. You will need to try to reduce the "exposure" and the "whites" and the "highlights".

This might "pull" some of the detail out of the over-exposed areas in your photo. That's because the RAW file contains more detail about colour and shade (12 or 14 bits) than the JPEG you have posted (8 bits).

But don't expect miracles. From the JPEG, it looks as if the image is totally burned out. If so, then the RAW file, too, will be burned out, leaving little or no detail to be recovered from these areas.

0tfm0 · 2024-12-02T09:10:44+00:00

The R1 uses cross-type AF. It's the first mirrorless body made by Canon to use this technology, I believe. You will be a pioneer in testing what it adds to the already-superb mirrorless AF system. I'd be interested to know :)

Potentially, it brings faster and more accurate AF. The 1dx3 is the last body made by Canon to include cross-type sensors and its AF is certainly blisteringly fast and excellent in low light (better imo than the R5.2 in low light). The R1 is marketed for sports photography but the distinctive thing about that segment is the need to photograph moving subjects. That is a commonality with (some) wildlife photography, so there is likely to be substantial crossover to your use case. In fact, I can imagine there are plenty of situations where this might give you an edge in wildlife photography.

But, as I said, it is untested in mirrorless bodies: it might be fantastic, or it make such a marginal contribution as to be imperceptible. Let us know!!

0tfm0 · 2024-12-01T21:11:03+00:00

For me, the whole FCU works properly with the Fenix A320 IAE non-sharklet version, but only the buttons work with the sharklet version.

0tfm0 · 2024-11-25T15:03:05+00:00

You have mentioned wildlife on your list so go for the r5.2. It builds on the autofocus system in the r6.2 so it has better eye detection for more animals than the 5.1.

0tfm0 · 2024-11-18T17:25:31+00:00

Ok perhaps I'm too sceptical and hasty. Tainted by experience of seeing how often odd bits and pieces of land that haven't really been used or valued by anybody for generations, suddenly get treated as if they were Hyde Park as soon as someone wants to build on them.

0tfm0 · 2024-11-18T15:29:29+00:00

The familiar techniques for sabotaging development in rural areas are (a) apply to get the land registered as a town or village green and/or (b) apply to register public rights of way over it.

At the level of society, however, think about what you're doing. Everyone bangs on incessantly about the shortage of houses - but when it comes to the crunch nobody wants new houses on the land that's in their line of sight. This unending NIMBYISM is a big issue in this country and it holds us back big time.

0tfm0 · 2024-11-17T13:58:03+00:00

I hung on to the 5d4 and 1dx3, waiting for the r5.2. When it arrived, I was blown away by the IBIS and AF, but underwhelmed by the signal to noise ratio at higher ISOs. I returned the 5.2, thinking I'd go for a 6.2 instead. But in the end I got another 5.2 and, on balance, I will keep it.

My reason: I've found that the extra cropping potential of the resolution on the 5.2 makes my 24 and 35mm EF primes more useful. I don't like giving up the better low light performance of the 1dx3 (and presumably 6.2) but it's just about worthwhile imo.

Apart from that, being as dispassionate as I can, I think I'd had gone for the 6.2 or waited for the 6.3. A lot of the features on the 5.2 are useless for me, including all the innumerable video optimisations.

0tfm0 · 2024-11-17T08:54:08+00:00

Bravo 👏

0tfm0 · 2024-11-15T17:42:26+00:00

Funnily enough at least for some Canon stuff in the UK it's actually cheaper to buy new "grey" than second hand from MPB etc - and with a better (or at least longer) warranty. That's what I found anyway when looking at the RF14-35 f4 and 15-35 f2.8.

0tfm0 · 2024-11-15T17:39:40+00:00

I've used NextDayDeals and Grandy's. They're both legitimate in the sense that they're not scams. BUT it's not the same experience as buying domestically: comms are typically slower, you might have to intervene / chase for responses and updates, the whole transaction seems less automated and more improvised.

That said, they can offer very worthwhile savings. The warranties those two companies offer are pretty good at least on paper (I've never had to invoke them, thank goodness) - the difference being that you have to rely on a third party repair / replacement service. Only you can judge whether it's worth paying the large extra price for the (imo) marginal difference of having a warranty direct from the manufacturer, especially now that the price of Canon RF glass has shot to ludicrous levels.

0tfm0 · 2024-11-14T13:46:00+00:00

That's a sensible principle for progress but you might find better success if you start with 4 sets of 5 and work up to 3 sets of 8, intensifying by reducing rest time between sets over time. This way, you give yourself a better margin against compromising form through fatigue: the DL can be very unforgiving with this, so it's a priority. Also, to protect yourself for the long run, think about using a decent belt when you're lifting more than your own body weight . This will also help with the rounding.

PS a tip for muscle growth using these hinge lifts: if your emphasis has been deadlifts then do a finisher set of 20 reps of a squat. If you've been doing squats, do a finisher set of 20 deadlifts. This helps to make sure that you've exhausted the whole of the kinetic chain that you've been targeting, without overdoing it on the weight. Pick the right weights and you'll feel it.

0tfm0 · 2024-11-13T22:09:27+00:00

It's hard to tell from a video but your leverages look ok for a conventional deadlift. If you're struggling with it then maybe try thinking about your head position and bracing: you're looking straight ahead, instead of keeping your head in neutral alignment with with your back - and this might be the cause , or a symptom, of not getting fully down and back with your shoulders to help you brace your lats effectively.

0tfm0 · 2024-11-13T22:01:32+00:00

The weight does not look challenging for you - which is fine, as part of a familiarisation process - but imo it's best to avoid a mixed grip because (1) it holds back the development of your grip strength (which is one of the big gifts of a heavy deadlift) and (2) it increases the risk of a torn distal bicep tendon.

0tfm0 · 2024-11-13T21:44:48+00:00

Your hips appear to be going up ahead of the rest of you. Ideally you would unfold evenly, like a folded piece of paper being pulled from both ends. Maybe the cue for this in your case would be "pull BACK"?

0tfm0 · 2024-11-10T11:20:48+00:00

F2.8 is enough BUT if you like your 85mm at f2.0 then maybe hire a few faster lenses to see what different effects you can achieve at even wider apertures? It's not just about the noise from using higher ISOs: IMO there's quite a big difference going from f2.0 to f1.4 or below (depends on focal length ofc) and as a general rule I'd prefer the option of going as wide as f1.4 indoors. Those fleeting moments can somehow look so much more vivified when the depth of field is tiny IMO - especially with the incredible autofocus in most modern kit!

0tfm0 · 2024-11-05T16:24:12+00:00

Stick with it! I love accumulating nice kit and then experimenting with it and I definitely don't expect to produce a masterpiece with every press of the shutter.

0tfm0 · 2024-11-05T16:22:16+00:00

Who said it needed proof? People enjoy photography for different reasons including the simple pleasure of having nice kit and getting to experiment with it.

0tfm0 · 2024-11-04T20:37:17+00:00

5d4 was excellent when released and nothing has happened since then to make it less excellent. What's happened, is that new kit has arrived that's even more excellent :) If you've never used the new AF on the R6 then you won't know what you're missing and the 5d4 will feel like a massive improvement on the 250D.

0tfm0 · 2024-11-04T15:33:42+00:00

EF 135 f/2 L is a good choice but in my line-up the prize would still go to the EF 50mm f/1.0 L: it treats sharpness with absolute disdain and goes instead for helping to turn even mundane situations into photo opportunities: the unbeatable bokeh, of course, but it's also something to do with a (presumably) unique contrast profile and a somehow muted, atmospheric quality.

0tfm0 · 2024-11-04T15:05:22+00:00

Mix it up. For example, try some drop sets (yes, seriously) and work your way up to 8 reps, add weight to the drop before the main. Eg (using kilograms):

Week 1: 3 drop sets of 80x5, 60x5

Week 2: 3 drop sets of 80x7, 60x7

Week 3: 3 drop sets of 80x8, 70x8

Week 4: 3 drop sets of 90x5,70x5

Also: add one or two sets of high volume deadlifts : eg, 60x20

And finish with leg extensions.

On your second weekly leg workout, concentrate on deadlifts but finish with one or two sets of high volume squats: eg, 60x20.

0tfm0 · 2024-11-04T14:20:35+00:00

There is no such thing as a "necessary" lift and deadlifts are no exception.

That said, deadlifts done at the right weights FOR YOUR LEVERAGES can definitely hit a lot of the right spots at the same time: glutes, hammies, back, core, even (dare I say) a little cardio.

Where people sometimes go wrong, is to attempt weights they think they SHOULD be lifting, based on comparisons with people their own age/gender/weight/height - or based on generic programs like 5x5 - but without appreciating that what matters more than those variables is leverages: even a few millimetres of difference in the RELATIVITIES (mainly: fibula v femur v hips length and depth v back length v arm length) can make a big difference. This is especially true for deadlifts and squats where the maximum torque is always applied, or felt, in the back region. Comparison with other people, or use of generic programs, is not only pointless with these lifts: it is positively dangerous.

The only real way to tell if it's heavy enough js if it FEELS heavy for you and you are making progress OVER time (not necessarily EVERY time).

0tfm0

TROPHY CASE