Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Proper "working distance" for vocal mics
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: I'll have specific model numbers by tomorrow for the two Audix vocal mics I'm dealing with here, but for the moment, which, if any of the specs for a mic would tell you whether a mic is best used by singing extremely close, perhaps an inch or two away, vs one which will work if the singer tends to stay 4-8 inches away? It has a lot more to do with the musical style, the singer, and the room than it does with the mike. --scott By the way, the singer's wired mic is an Audix OM-2. With any luck, he'll cut loose with the model # of his wireless Audix by the end of the week. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Proper "working distance" for vocal mics
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message I got him a foam windscreen, but he thinks it looks weird. I have yet to meet an audience member who critiqued the appearance of any band's mics, but hey - there's always a first time. Just remind him that Devo made millions of dollars strictly on looking weird. Get him a HUGE foam windscreen. I have a female vocalist who removes the foamy from her mic because she believes that it reduces the ability of the mic to "cut through" (her words). She may be right. I've never told her about the big chunk of foam that is right inside the woven wire ball... If it's an SM-58, it cuts off a huge amount of the top end. Try singing into it with and without the ball and the sound difference is substantial. The good news is that she can sing without popping, windscreen or not. Consider giving her a mike without a ball, then. SM-57 is a surprisingly decent PA choice for a lot of vocalists if their technique is good and their voice does well with the presence peak. --scott Audix OM5, OM6. Sennheiser MD431. We could go on. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Proper "working distance" for vocal mics
Arny Krueger wrote:
If it's an SM-58, it cuts off a huge amount of the top end. Try singing into it with and without the ball and the sound difference is substantial. It's not a SM-58 Scott *is* trying to help you. That doesn't change the facts. The mic is not a SM-58. Am I supposed to lie and say that its a SM58 to protect someone's feelings? It came across as negative compared to simply say what mic you're using on that vox, even though the problems in the design model imo are not all that different between makes and models. Windows? Yes, and painted cinderblock and polished wood and stone Windows are bad, they alternate between transparent and reflective, traditional leaded are less bad. A modern building here in Copenhagen had a perforated transparent foil fitted to a very large glass facade, changing it from reflective to absorbing, quite possibly so costly that only an art museum could afford the treatment. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Proper "working distance" for vocal mics
On Aug 17, 9:25*am, (hank alrich) wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in I got him a foam windscreen, but he thinks it looks weird. I have yet to meet an audience member who critiqued the appearance of any band's mics, but hey - there's always a first time. Just remind him that Devo made millions of dollars strictly on looking weird. *Get him a HUGE foam windscreen. I have a female vocalist who removes the foamy from her mic because she believes that it reduces the ability of the mic to "cut through" (her words). She may be right. I've never told her about the big chunk of foam that is right inside the woven wire ball... If it's an SM-58, it cuts off a huge amount of the top end. *Try singing into it with and without the ball and the sound difference is substantial. The good news is that she can sing without popping, windscreen or not. Consider giving her a mike without a ball, then. *SM-57 is a surprisingly decent PA choice for a lot of vocalists if their technique is good and their voice does well with the presence peak. --scott Audix OM5, OM6. Sennheiser MD431. We could go on. -- shut up and play your guitar *http://hankalrich.com/http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.htmlhttp://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman An MD 421 would work very well on a vocalist, especially with the rolloff engaged. You won't overload it, but I'm sure that the vocalist would think it looked funny. I've had excellent results with screamers using the discontinued Shure SM53 or SM54. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Proper "working distance" for vocal mics
Richard Kuschel wrote:
An MD 421 would work very well on a vocalist, especially with the rolloff engaged. You won't overload it, but I'm sure that the vocalist would think it looked funny. It was originally intended as a vocal mike, and it was used as such for years and years. There's a Byrds album with a photo of them singing into some of the early cream-colored ones. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Proper "working distance" for vocal mics
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k Arny Krueger wrote: If it's an SM-58, it cuts off a huge amount of the top end. Try singing into it with and without the ball and the sound difference is substantial. It's not a SM-58 Scott *is* trying to help you. That doesn't change the facts. The mic is not a SM-58. Am I supposed to lie and say that its a SM58 to protect someone's feelings? It came across as negative compared to simply say what mic you're using on that vox, even though the problems in the design model imo are not all that different between makes and models. I know better than to reveal information that the critical minds around here will twist into personal criticisms of me. Look at this. You've managed to turn a simple brief statement that the mic in quesiton is not a SM58 into a federal case. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Proper "working distance" for vocal mics
Arny Krueger wrote:
I know better than to reveal information that the critical minds around here will twist into personal criticisms of me. I didn't consider that angle, thank you for clarifying. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Proper "working distance" for vocal mics
Arnii Krooger, Perfeshunnel Rekording En-juh-near, holds forth on the
whys and wherefores of making really ****ty rekordings that no one ever buys. The good news So you're still pretending to be a "christian", Turdy? The Kroopocrisy never ends. I started out with 5 SM57s *about a decade back. We've definately[sic] moved very far from that. In case anyone's forgotten, the Krooborg is unwilling to post a sample of its "professional" recording efforts. Rational humans know the Beast is afraid to let its "work" be known among its betters because the quality thereof is so ****ty. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Proper installation of a "fuse block" | Car Audio | |||
Film "Jam Session," 1944 - pedal steel vocal effect ?!? | Pro Audio | |||
Zone 2 "Presenence Speakers" Not Working Yamaha RXV657 | Audio Opinions |