[genericaudioperson]

Hello,

I was wondering if you shockmount a large-diaphragm condenser mic,
what kinds of classic problems it typically saves you from in a live
sound situation.

I'm wondering if it saves you from a sort of accumlated feedback
situation, where the mic slowly gathers ambient stage rumble and then
gets moody and starts to howl on you.

[Scott Dorsey]

genericaudioperson wrote:

I was wondering if you shockmount a large-diaphragm condenser mic,
what kinds of classic problems it typically saves you from in a live
sound situation.

Generally using a large diaphragm condenser mike in a live sound situation
is a really bad idea because most of them have poor off-axis response.

A shockmount probably isn't a bad idea even if you are aggressively
low-cutting. But then, a shockmount isn't a bad idea for any stage
mikes in a live sound situation.

Most stage microphones have built-in shock mounting to reduce handling
noise, and a lot of studio microphones do not.

I'm wondering if it saves you from a sort of accumlated feedback
situation, where the mic slowly gathers ambient stage rumble and then
gets moody and starts to howl on you.

It will howl at the frequency where the system is resonant. Plot out
the whole frequency response of the room and the sound system.... find
the highest point on the graph. That's where the system feeds back.
Moving the mike a little bit will change the response of the system and
so your feedback frequencies might differ.

If you have a very low frequency feedback problem, shock mounting can
help it by reducing the response of the mike to low frequencies conducted
through the stage. If the biggest peak on the graph is at a higher
frequency, it won't reduce feedback at all. But it WILL reduce the amount
of unwanted low frequency crap in the mike feed.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"genericaudioperson" wrote
in message


I was wondering if you shockmount a large-diaphragm
condenser mic, what kinds of classic problems it
typically saves you from in a live sound situation.

IME, Shock mounts are very necessary in live sound situations. Every mic
should have one. If the mic doesn't have an effective shock mounting system
built in, then you need to add one externally.

The two big problems that shock mounts adress are handling noise and
foot-falls.

If the mics you use don't have readily-available shock mounts, there is no
doubt some other mic with a similar diameter that does have an available
shock mount. On a bad day, I've shimmed a too-small micrphone body to match
a too-large shock mount. Gaffers tape often suffices, but on an even worse
day I've used back-to-back layers of velcro tape.

The things to watch for in shock mounts are weakness at the pivot point, and
overly-flaccid elastic suspensions.

The elastic suspensions are generally easy to replace. Hair bands from the
drug store can work out very well.

I've had pivot points disintegrate. If they get stripped, the hardware store
has appropriate wing nuts, screw, and washers.

Vocal mics should have enough built-in shock mounting. The classic small
diameter end-firing and large diameter side-address mics generally don't
have any internal shock-mounting at all.

I'm wondering if it saves you from a sort of accumlated
feedback situation, where the mic slowly gathers ambient
stage rumble and then gets moody and starts to howl on you.

Maybe yes, probably no. Got some parametric eq?

[Mike Rivers]

Arny Krueger wrote:

The two big problems that shock mounts adress are handling noise and
foot-falls.

An internal shock mount for the capsule (part of the design of many mics
that are designed to be hand-held) will reduce handling noise, but a
suspension shock mount makes hand-holding pretty difficult. If the
artist tries to swing the mic around on the stand Elvis-style, the
suspension is usually too floppy and the cable tends to pull the mic
where it wants.

A suspension mount can keep vibration of the stage platform from foot
stomping from being transmitted to the microphone, but it won't
eliminate the sound of a player tapping his foot. The sound of a shoe
sole hitting a hard stage has a lot of high frequency content. They only
thing that can minimize that is soft (or no) shoes as well as a shock mount.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[genericaudioperson]

Thanks everyone, and thanks Mr. Dorsey.

I guess I forgot (or never fully realized) that hand-helds have shock
mounting in them.

I'm interested in your statement that large-diapghagm condenser mics
are a bad idea in a live situation. Suppose you had an acoustic
ensemble (with no stage monitors), and you merely wanted to step up
the volume a bit. Wouldn't it make sense to use a studio-style large
diaphragm condenser or two rather than something like an SM-58? Hand-
helds typically have tight polar patterns. I would think the studio-
style mic would capture more of the stage sound with better fidelity
and from a greater distance.

[Mike Rivers]

genericaudioperson wrote:

I'm interested in your statement that large-diapghagm condenser mics
are a bad idea in a live situation. Suppose you had an acoustic
ensemble (with no stage monitors), and you merely wanted to step up
the volume a bit. Wouldn't it make sense to use a studio-style large
diaphragm condenser or two rather than something like an SM-58?

If it was a good studio-style large diaphragm condenser mic, sure. The
SM-58 was designed to work close to the source so its off-axis response
is of little consequence - what arrives at the mic off axis is coming
from enough further away than the primary source that it's so low in
level that it doesn't really matter that it sounds bad. A good quality
large (or small) diaphragm mic with even off-axis frequency response
will work well for sources gathered around it. One with poor off-axis
response will not. And there are a lot of large diaphragm "studio style"
condenser mics that have pretty poor off axis response, even some
expensive ones.

Over and over again - it's not how much the mic costs or what it looks
like that matters, it's how it performs the job that you're trying to do.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Arny Krueger]

"genericaudioperson" wrote
in message

Hello,

I was wondering if you shockmount a large-diaphragm
condenser mic, what kinds of classic problems it
typically saves you from in a live sound situation.

In my case, I was worried about footsteps.

I'm wondering if it saves you from a sort of accumlated
feedback situation, where the mic slowly gathers ambient
stage rumble and then gets moody and starts to howl on
you.

Probably not.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:53:42 -0800 (PST), genericaudioperson
wrote:

I'm interested in your statement that large-diapghagm condenser mics
are a bad idea in a live situation. Suppose you had an acoustic
ensemble (with no stage monitors), and you merely wanted to step up
the volume a bit. Wouldn't it make sense to use a studio-style large
diaphragm condenser or two rather than something like an SM-58? Hand-
helds typically have tight polar patterns. I would think the studio-
style mic would capture more of the stage sound with better fidelity
and from a greater distance.

What would you hang in front of a live ensemble to record them? The
less directional the mis, and the further back you place it, the more
room sound you'll get. Remember in this case "room sound" will
include the PA speakers.

[Arny Krueger]

"genericaudioperson" wrote
in message


Thanks everyone, and thanks Mr. Dorsey.

I guess I forgot (or never fully realized) that
hand-helds have shock mounting in them.

The effectiveness of this shock-mounting varies.

I'm interested in your statement that large-diapghagm
condenser mics are a bad idea in a live situation.

For openers, LD mics tend to be physically large, require external shock
mounts, lack pop filters, are side-address, and have extended bass response.
As a rule, they are not designed to be hand-held which is a common
requirement for vocal mics.

OTOH, I use LD mics that have all of the disadvantages mentioned above for
live sound - for things like a string, horn, or percussion section.

Different horses for different courses.

Suppose you had an acoustic ensemble (with no stage
monitors), and you merely wanted to step up the volume a
bit.

You still have to worry about feedback from the main speakers.

Wouldn't it make sense to use a studio-style large
diaphragm condenser or two rather than something like an
SM-58?

The most obvious problem with SM58s is that their sensitivity is on the low
side when placed some distance from most musical instruments. They are
designed for close-micing. They are not all that sensitive. They are
generally 10-20 dB less sensitive than most condenser mics.

Hand- helds typically have tight polar patterns.

As a rule, but that varies. Some are cardioids, some are supercardoids, some
are hypercardioids. All cardioids are not the same - some are wide
cardioids, some are narrow cardioids. Even within each of the 3-4 general
types, they vary in terms of how well they reject bass frequencies off-axis.

I would think the studio- style mic would capture more of
the stage sound with better fidelity and from a greater
distance.

Well, you are safest generalizing on the distance part. The rest is not
save to generalize on. Furthermore "capturing more the stage sound" is often
exactly what you *don't* want.

[Scott Dorsey]

genericaudioperson wrote:
I'm interested in your statement that large-diapghagm condenser mics
are a bad idea in a live situation. Suppose you had an acoustic
ensemble (with no stage monitors), and you merely wanted to step up
the volume a bit. Wouldn't it make sense to use a studio-style large
diaphragm condenser or two rather than something like an SM-58?

No, it would make sense to use something like the Schoeps which is very
flat off-axis. A microphone like a typical studio large diaphragm condenser
will have a lot of off-axis aberrations that will make it a nightmare for
PA work.

Hand-
helds typically have tight polar patterns. I would think the studio-
style mic would capture more of the stage sound with better fidelity
and from a greater distance.

You want a tight polar pattern to prevent feedback. But you want the
response to be flat off-axis.

Try a 441, for instance. I have occasionally done PA work with acoustic
instruments where I had enough gain before feedback to keep the 441
six feet away from the performer. The 441 is about as tight and solid
a polar pattern as you'll get on a budget, and it has good shockmounting
too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."