Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
We're in the process of evaluating the current sound system in our church.
We are looking at upgrading our equipment for live performances, and trying to figure out what pieces of our current equipment are sufficient and what needs to be replaced. We currently have two Shure 588SB mics and an Astatic 857L. Looking at the specs for the Shure, it looks like a precursor to the SM58. I don't have any information on the Astatic. When I called Astatic about the 857L, they told me they didn't have any information on that particular microphone, but suggested that it was probably similar to the CTM-44. Any opinions on these mics would be appreciated. Doug |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:02:03 GMT, "Doug S"
wrote: We're in the process of evaluating the current sound system in our church. We are looking at upgrading our equipment for live performances, and trying to figure out what pieces of our current equipment are sufficient and what needs to be replaced. You're going to read more responsible, more thoughtful, and "possibly" more useful advice as your thread progresses, but you won't read any more realer (or is that "realerer"?) than this: Sound reinforcement is *impossible* in a church. Period. Some will say that they've done it and lived to tell the tale. I say, Bah and Fie! Show me the scalps! But seriously, useful comments will require much more info. How headworn-mic-averse are the principles? What kind of speakers and where? These are the biggie issues, and they're usually the deal-breakers. And, you've picked the right place to ask. There're several really and truly serious church SR guys right here. Just get ready to answer some detailed questions. (! That's a good thing) All good fortune, Chris Hornbeck "It's for compatibility with 8-Track." --scott |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
On Mar 11, 11:02 pm, "Doug S" wrote:
We're in the process of evaluating the current sound system in our church. We are looking at upgrading our equipment for live performances, and trying to figure out what pieces of our current equipment are sufficient and what needs to be replaced. We currently have two Shure 588SB mics and an Astatic 857L. Given that as a starting point and your goal, I'd say that everything needs to be replaced. Your mixer (if you even have one - I suspect that there's an amplifier with high impedance mic inputs in a closet somewhere) is almost certainly inadequate for live performance of anything but a single preacher. Make a list of everything you have and start by deciding what you can salvage rather than looking at what you should upgrade. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
Thanks for the replies so far. I probably should have been a little more
specific. We are aware that most of the equipment will need to be replaced, as it is set up more for "lecture hall" reinforcement than any type of quality audio enhancement. I was specifically looking for opinions on the microphones to see if they were something we could use in an upgraded system, or are they just "speech" mics. Doug "Doug S" wrote in message news:LIHBj.5401$Mp4.5061@trndny02... We're in the process of evaluating the current sound system in our church. We are looking at upgrading our equipment for live performances, and trying to figure out what pieces of our current equipment are sufficient and what needs to be replaced. We currently have two Shure 588SB mics and an Astatic 857L. Looking at the specs for the Shure, it looks like a precursor to the SM58. I don't have any information on the Astatic. When I called Astatic about the 857L, they told me they didn't have any information on that particular microphone, but suggested that it was probably similar to the CTM-44. Any opinions on these mics would be appreciated. Doug |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:02:03 -0400, Doug S wrote
(in article LIHBj.5401$Mp4.5061@trndny02): We're in the process of evaluating the current sound system in our church. We are looking at upgrading our equipment for live performances, and trying to figure out what pieces of our current equipment are sufficient and what needs to be replaced. We currently have two Shure 588SB mics and an Astatic 857L. Looking at the specs for the Shure, it looks like a precursor to the SM58. I don't have any information on the Astatic. When I called Astatic about the 857L, they told me they didn't have any information on that particular microphone, but suggested that it was probably similar to the CTM-44. Any opinions on these mics would be appreciated. Doug Audio-Technica AE5400. Enjoy! Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
In article LIHBj.5401$Mp4.5061@trndny02,
Doug S wrote: We're in the process of evaluating the current sound system in our church. We are looking at upgrading our equipment for live performances, and trying to figure out what pieces of our current equipment are sufficient and what needs to be replaced. We currently have two Shure 588SB mics and an Astatic 857L. Looking at the specs for the Shure, it looks like a precursor to the SM58. I don't have any information on the Astatic. When I called Astatic about the 857L, they told me they didn't have any information on that particular microphone, but suggested that it was probably similar to the CTM-44. Any opinions on these mics would be appreciated. The 588SB is indeed basically an SM58 with a switch, sold through sound contractors. It's just as terrible as a regular SM58. The 857L is also something Astatic sold only through the contractor market. It was intended to be cheap and have a big presence peak, but it should have more top end than the SM-58. Just about anything has more top end than the SM-58. If you are looking for higher grade microphones of a similar type, look into the AKG D-880. They actually have top end, and are considerably more directional, but still have that huge overblown SM-58 presence peak. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
well, I'd plan on replacing the mics. I'm probably a little
prejudiced, since I actually hate the sound of the SM58, and the 588sb appears to be an even worse iteration of that basic design. If you're serious about upgrading the system, plan on dumping all your current mics. It won't cost very much, on a % of overall project cost, to get much better mics. What you replace them with, will be a function of budget and application. -glenn On Mar 12, 8:40*am, "Doug S" wrote: Thanks for the replies so far. I probably should have been a little more specific. We are aware that most of the equipment will need to be replaced, as it is set up more for "lecture hall" reinforcement than any type of quality audio enhancement. I was specifically looking for opinions on the microphones to see if they were something we could use in an upgraded system, or are they just "speech" mics. Doug |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
"Doug S" wrote in message
news:LIHBj.5401$Mp4.5061@trndny02 We're in the process of evaluating the current sound system in our church. And your current entire equipment list is??? Tell us about the church, too. We are looking at upgrading our equipment for live performances, and trying to figure out what pieces of our current equipment are sufficient and what needs to be replaced. What you have listed so far doesn't look hopeful. We currently have two Shure 588SB mics and an Astatic 857L. Looking at the specs for the Shure, it looks like a precursor to the SM58. I don't have any information on the Astatic. When I called Astatic about the 857L, they told me they didn't have any information on that particular microphone, but suggested that it was probably similar to the CTM-44. Let's put it this way, SM58s cost less than $100 each, and they are considered by very many to be a lot less than they want to work with. $300 is chump change for a sound system for even a small church that is starting out. If the rest of your system is at this level, it *all* needs to be put into the round storage facility that many empty every week. The only thing for which there could be any hope might the the speakers, as that is a slower-moving technology. But I don't have a lot of hope for them, either. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in
message Sound reinforcement is *impossible* in a church. Period. I find this to be a pretty remarkable statement. IME most older churches are using a lot of instruments and rooms that were designed to be used with no electronics at all. Therefore, there is so much spill from acoustic instruments and performers, that sound reinforcment is the *only* option. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message Sound reinforcement is *impossible* in a church. Period. I find this to be a pretty remarkable statement. IME most older churches are using a lot of instruments and rooms that were designed to be used with no electronics at all. Therefore, there is so much spill from acoustic instruments and performers, that sound reinforcment is the *only* option. I'm missing something here. If you build a room with a good long reverb time and a clean reverb so that it sounds good for acoustical instruments without electronics, you get a room that does just that. You may need a sounding board or a backplate around the pulpit in order to deal with speech in a room with a long reverb time, though. If you want to put electric instruments into a room like that, you have a problem. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: "Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message Sound reinforcement is *impossible* in a church. Period. I find this to be a pretty remarkable statement. IME most older churches are using a lot of instruments and rooms that were designed to be used with no electronics at all. Therefore, there is so much spill from acoustic instruments and performers, that sound reinforcment is the *only* option. I'm missing something here. If you build a room with a good long reverb time and a clean reverb so that it sounds good for acoustical instruments without electronics, you get a room that does just that. Conceptually, you're right as rain, Scott. Where it breaks down is that not a lot of church sanctuaries were built with good acoustics, especially in times just past. For example, there are a tremendous number of church sanctuaries that were built in the 1900s, following floor plans that were the limit of what achitecture could do in the 1500s. IOW, long and skinny with flat floors, high ceilings, and slab walls with shallow window openings. You may need a sounding board or a backplate around the pulpit in order to deal with speech in a room with a long reverb time, though. I've never seen that done in a protestant church, but it is an interesting idea. I imagine it could be done by putting a chair with a high wide backboard behind the pulpet, or insetting the pulpet into a wall. If you want to put electric instruments into a room like that, you have a problem. IME, the problem starts when you shift away from using singers with classically-trained voices, and lecturers with stentorian voices. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
Arny Krueger wrote:
You may need a sounding board or a backplate around the pulpit in order to deal with speech in a room with a long reverb time, though. I've never seen that done in a protestant church, but it is an interesting idea. I imagine it could be done by putting a chair with a high wide backboard behind the pulpet, or insetting the pulpet into a wall. The sounding board on top is part of the traditional Anglican design. Here's the one at our local old Episcopal church: http://photos.igougo.com/pictures-ph...on_Church.html The backboard is still more effective at improving directionality of the speaker, but it's a lot more clumsy. You will see them often in older Anglican and Lutheran churches, though. If you want to put electric instruments into a room like that, you have a problem. IME, the problem starts when you shift away from using singers with classically-trained voices, and lecturers with stentorian voices. Agreed. And too many choir directors believe that more voices will compensate for voices that can't project. The case of Catholic churches is a totally different one too; most of the ones designed before Vatican II weren't intended for voice intelligibility because that wasn't important in the service. But now it is. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... The case of Catholic churches is a totally different one too; most of the ones designed before Vatican II weren't intended for voice intelligibility because that wasn't important in the service. But now it is. Scott, may I cite you as an authority? That is *exactly* what I've been telling people at a spot I work at moderately regularly, and I'm not sure they believe me. I've been doing sound in a recently-deconsecrated church, and it's a bear. Tall arched ceiling (around 40' at a guess), better than 50' wide, and about 120' long, plus the sanctuary (add another 40' to the length, give or take), built in late 1880s. See http://www.stbrigidottawa.com/id19.html for some pics. And *everybody* is going "Oh, aren't the acoustics great in here!" Argh. Well, not everybody. The DJs last weekend arrived, looked at the place, looked at me, shook their heads and went "Boy, I bet you have LOTS of fun here." (They thanked and congratulated me at the end of the night :-) So -- low volume, delay speakers 40' out from the mains, no low end in the monitors, and everybody's happy. Except for the band who set up in the sanctuary and tried to jam with the organist who was in the choir loft at the back of the church. (Mind you, the Casavant didn't need any reinforcement at all :-) Dave O'H oheareATmagmaDOTca |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
"Dave O'Heare" wrote in message
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... The case of Catholic churches is a totally different one too; most of the ones designed before Vatican II weren't intended for voice intelligibility because that wasn't important in the service. But now it is. When the priest is speaking in Latin, what would voice intelligibility mean for most of us? ;-) Scott, may I cite you as an authority? That is *exactly* what I've been telling people at a spot I work at moderately regularly, and I'm not sure they believe me. IME, the architecture of most catholic churches of the era would bear you out. I've been doing sound in a recently-deconsecrated church, and it's a bear. Tall arched ceiling (around 40' at a guess), better than 50' wide, and about 120' long, plus the sanctuary (add another 40' to the length, give or take), built in late 1880s. See http://www.stbrigidottawa.com/id19.html for some pics. And *everybody* is going "Oh, aren't the acoustics great in here!" Acoustics for what? That's the key. http://www.acousticalsolutions.com/e...verb_Times.pdf |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
On Mar 12, 5:40*am, "Doug S" wrote:
Thanks for the replies so far. I probably should have been a little more specific. We are aware that most of the equipment will need to be replaced, as it is set up more for "lecture hall" reinforcement than any type of quality audio enhancement. I was specifically looking for opinions on the microphones to see if they were something we could use in an upgraded system, or are they just "speech" mics. Doug "Doug S" wrote in message news:LIHBj.5401$Mp4.5061@trndny02... We're in the process of evaluating the current sound system in our church. We are looking at upgrading our equipment for live performances, and trying to figure out what pieces of our current equipment are sufficient and what needs to be replaced. We currently have two Shure 588SB mics and an Astatic 857L. Looking at the specs for the Shure, it looks like a precursor to the SM58. I don't have any information on the Astatic. When I called Astatic about the 857L, they told me they didn't have any information on that particular microphone, but suggested that it was probably similar to the CTM-44. Any opinions on these mics would be appreciated. Doug Every mic that works can be used somewhere. You might use them in a dedicated system that calls the performers from backstage. You could use them to make "house announcements" to the lobby to get the audience in. I wouldn't consider them as part of your regular inventory for an updated sound system, but, any mic that works can find a home doing something useful. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
The case of Catholic churches is a totally different one too; most of the ones designed before Vatican II weren't intended for voice intelligibility because that wasn't important in the service. *But now it is. On Mar 12, 3:00 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: When the priest is speaking in Latin, what would voice intelligibility mean for most of us? ;-) The congregation was expected to respond to the Latin prayers _in Latin_. Intelligibility would be at least as important if not more so. rd |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
On 2008-03-12, Dave O'Heare wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... The case of Catholic churches is a totally different one too; most of the ones designed before Vatican II weren't intended for voice intelligibility because that wasn't important in the service. But now it is. Scott, may I cite you as an authority? That is *exactly* what I've been telling people at a spot I work at moderately regularly, and I'm not sure they believe me. I've been doing sound in a recently-deconsecrated church, and it's a bear. Tall arched ceiling (around 40' at a guess), better than 50' wide, and about 120' long, plus the sanctuary (add another 40' to the length, give or take), built in late 1880s. See http://www.stbrigidottawa.com/id19.html for some pics. And *everybody* is going "Oh, aren't the acoustics great in here!" Argh. If it's anything like the churches we have here, the acoustics are indeed great... For organ music. :-) When priests speak in that peculiar nasal tone, I suspect they're trying to put the articulation in the band in which the reverberation time is shortest or something. -- André Majorel URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/ (Counterfeit: ) "I drink, I smoke, I gamble, I chase girls--but postal chess is one vice I don't have." -- Mikhail Tal |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:51:17 -0700 (PDT), RD Jones
wrote: The congregation was expected to respond to the Latin prayers _in Latin_. Intelligibility would be at least as important if not more so You think so? I suspect then, as now, many of them just "knew the tune" :-) “Our Father, who art in Heaven, how didja know my name?” “Give us this steak and daily bread, and forgive us our mattresses.” “Lead a snot into temptation.” |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
"RD Jones" wrote in message
... "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message The case of Catholic churches is a totally different one too; most of the ones designed before Vatican II weren't intended for voice intelligibility because that wasn't important in the service. But now it is. On Mar 12, 3:00 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: When the priest is speaking in Latin, what would voice intelligibility mean for most of us? ;-) The congregation was expected to respond to the Latin prayers _in Latin_. Intelligibility would be at least as important if not more so. Perhaps, but by adolescence they probably knew the responses by heart and only needed the barest hint what prayer was being said. The acoustics were, however, great for Gregorian chant. Peace, Paul |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
Michael Forsyth's excellent book "Buildings for Music" deals with this
topic in detail. He makes an interesting reference to the fact that when Christopher Wren was asked to build a number of new churches around London at the beginning of the 18th century, it was emphasized that the buildings should be small enough for the congregation to be able to see and hear the preacher. He goes on to discuss the modification of many existing churches in Germany of the same period, remodeled to suit a changing requirements of the services held in them. What is interesting about this is that these changes weren't due only to changes in taste but theology. The musical implications to this are obvious too; many of Bach's larger works such as B-minor mass or St Matthew's passion were written for the Thomaskirche where the faster tempi used and more rapid changes of harmony would have been clouded by the acoustics of medieval architecture. For more up- to-date discussion on similar changes in listening habits, Emily Thompson's book "The Soundscape of Modernity", charts some similar territory in the design of concert halls and other listening spaces in the 20th century with some fascinating cultural insights into the 'drying up' of concert spaces through the latter part of the 20th century as listeners became accustomed to the acoustic intimacy of loudspeaker listening. DP |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Older Shure mics
"David@liminal" wrote in message
Emily Thompson's book "The Soundscape of Modernity", charts some similar territory in the design of concert halls and other listening spaces in the 20th century with some fascinating cultural insights into the 'drying up' of concert spaces through the latter part of the 20th century as listeners became accustomed to the acoustic intimacy of loudspeaker listening. There are multiple influences that favor rooms with shorter RTs. One is greater use of conversational speech, speakers that speak from multiple locations, and untrained speakers, another relates to the varying tempos of Jazz, pop and rock, as well as the greater use of percussion and other instruments with a lot of articulation. IME a choir singing traditional (even ancient) religious music benefits the most from very long RTs. A 45 minute lecture by a prof who is best known for his writing and research, or perhaps a non-native speaker of English benefits the most from short RTs. If you're doing sound in a contemporary church, you might have both kinds of acts on the same playbill, as it were. :-( |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Shure dynamic mics & phantom power | Pro Audio | |||
Shure Wireless System - 8 beltpacks / receivers / Beta98 mics / accessories | Marketplace | |||
Shure SM57 vs older 545 & 456 Unidyne | Pro Audio | |||
FA: (3) Mics - AKG D-1000E, EV 636G Slimair (gold), Shure 585 SA | Marketplace | |||
Shure Wireless Mics | Pro Audio |