Proper "working distance" for vocal mics [Archive]

JoeSpareBedroom[_2_]

August 14th 10, 03:41 PM

"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

Short singer with glasses. :-) Tends to eat the mic. Says he doesn't, but
photographs recently proved him wrong. The result is some awful distortion
when he sings loud peaks (James Brown songs and similar styles). It was
suggested to us that the problem might be our mixer settings, but the
problem persists in two clubs where we use our mics and the club's mixer. Of
course, the settings in these clubs also could've been wrong...

There are so many factors at work, and our band's not big (or rich) enough
to afford a sound man who can track down the problem WHILE we're playing.

Mike Rivers

August 14th 10, 05:34 PM

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> Short singer with glasses. :-) Tends to eat the mic. Says he doesn't, but
> photographs recently proved him wrong. The result is some awful distortion
> when he sings loud peaks

That just means that somebody wasn't paying attention and
didn't set the preamp gain or record level correctly.

> There are so many factors at work, and our band's not big (or rich) enough
> to afford a sound man who can track down the problem WHILE we're playing.

Get a better gig, at least for one night, Or have everyone
in the band chip in ten bucks to have someone with
experience come over during a sound check or for the first
15 minutes of the gig, tell you what you're doing wrong, and
make it right.

Working very close to a mic (unless it's an omnidirectional
mic) tends to emphasize low frequencies, often as much as
10-12 dB so it may be necessary to use a low cut filter to
compensate for that. Or it may be a useful part of his vocal
sound that you'll want to retain. This is where proper gain
setting comes in, and someone really needs to make that
adjustment while he's singing.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

JoeSpareBedroom[_2_]

August 14th 10, 05:57 PM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>> Short singer with glasses. :-) Tends to eat the mic. Says he doesn't,
>> but photographs recently proved him wrong. The result is some awful
>> distortion when he sings loud peaks
>
> That just means that somebody wasn't paying attention and didn't set the
> preamp gain or record level correctly.
>

If we set the input gain for (just to pick a number) singing 2" from the
mic, but the singer closes that distance to zero (eating mic) once per
minute, is the gain adjustment going to be "off" at that point?

It may be obvious by now that we're doing battle with a singer who loves to
eat the mic. If he was consistent about it, it SEEMS the problem would be
easier to solve.

Peter Larsen[_3_]

August 14th 10, 06:52 PM

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> If we set the input gain for (just to pick a number) singing 2" from
> the mic, but the singer closes that distance to zero (eating mic)
> once per minute, is the gain adjustment going to be "off" at that
> point?

YES. So set it lower. And roll the bass off.

> It may be obvious by now that we're doing battle with a singer who
> loves to eat the mic. If he was consistent about it, it SEEMS the
> problem would be easier to solve.

Get this guy a vocal coach if he really can not feel in his throat that
having the mic too close to the mouth makes it harder to sing because it
detunes all the mouth cavity resonances.

Test this yourself: hold a fist in front of your mouth and move it closer
and notice not only the changed sound - just as if a microphone was too
close - but also the strain it causes on the vocal cords.

To keep his distance: get a blast type windscreen - the 'nylon stockings
version". Worked great when I made recordings of the members of a chanson
socity. Don't bother about it being live, it will just indicate the length
you go to to provide studio quality sound to your audience.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

JoeSpareBedroom[_2_]

August 14th 10, 07:06 PM

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>> If we set the input gain for (just to pick a number) singing 2" from
>> the mic, but the singer closes that distance to zero (eating mic)
>> once per minute, is the gain adjustment going to be "off" at that
>> point?
>
> YES. So set it lower. And roll the bass off.
>
>> It may be obvious by now that we're doing battle with a singer who
>> loves to eat the mic. If he was consistent about it, it SEEMS the
>> problem would be easier to solve.
>
> Get this guy a vocal coach if he really can not feel in his throat that
> having the mic too close to the mouth makes it harder to sing because it
> detunes all the mouth cavity resonances.
>
> Test this yourself: hold a fist in front of your mouth and move it closer
> and notice not only the changed sound - just as if a microphone was too
> close - but also the strain it causes on the vocal cords.

Thank you. That's really interesting!

> To keep his distance: get a blast type windscreen - the 'nylon stockings
> version". Worked great when I made recordings of the members of a chanson
> socity. Don't bother about it being live, it will just indicate the length
> you go to to provide studio quality sound to your audience.

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.

Scott Dorsey

August 14th 10, 07:28 PM

JoeSpareBedroom > wrote:
>
>Short singer with glasses. :-) Tends to eat the mic. Says he doesn't, but
>photographs recently proved him wrong. The result is some awful distortion
>when he sings loud peaks (James Brown songs and similar styles). It was
>suggested to us that the problem might be our mixer settings, but the
>problem persists in two clubs where we use our mics and the club's mixer. Of
>course, the settings in these clubs also could've been wrong...

Oh, this is for a PA application.

Get him a very tight microphone with the narrowest pattern you can find,
and put a huge foam ball on it like the six-inch balls from Olsen Audio.
The ball will keep his face a few inches away from the mike and keep him
from eating it and popping.

>There are so many factors at work, and our band's not big (or rich) enough
>to afford a sound man who can track down the problem WHILE we're playing.

Sometimes mike-eating is caused by poor monitoring; folks just cannot hear
themselves and they can't hear what they're doing to the sound. Sometimes
it's just caused by sloppy mike technique. A big foam ball or some spiky
stuff on the end of the mike will cure it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey

August 14th 10, 07:30 PM

JoeSpareBedroom > wrote:
>"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>> Short singer with glasses. :-) Tends to eat the mic. Says he doesn't,
>>> but photographs recently proved him wrong. The result is some awful
>>> distortion when he sings loud peaks
>>
>> That just means that somebody wasn't paying attention and didn't set the
>> preamp gain or record level correctly.
>
>
>If we set the input gain for (just to pick a number) singing 2" from the
>mic, but the singer closes that distance to zero (eating mic) once per
>minute, is the gain adjustment going to be "off" at that point?

No.

But if a person eats the mike, they will just sound bad and the sound will
get nasty before it ever gets to the console.

If the console clips, that will make it a thousand times worse, mind you.
But it still starts out pretty bad.

>It may be obvious by now that we're doing battle with a singer who loves to
>eat the mic. If he was consistent about it, it SEEMS the problem would be
>easier to solve.

He probably can't hear himself, and I suspect IEMs aren't in your budget.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

JoeSpareBedroom[_2_]

August 14th 10, 07:52 PM

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom > wrote:
>>"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Short singer with glasses. :-) Tends to eat the mic. Says he doesn't,
>>>> but photographs recently proved him wrong. The result is some awful
>>>> distortion when he sings loud peaks
>>>
>>> That just means that somebody wasn't paying attention and didn't set the
>>> preamp gain or record level correctly.
>>
>>
>>If we set the input gain for (just to pick a number) singing 2" from the
>>mic, but the singer closes that distance to zero (eating mic) once per
>>minute, is the gain adjustment going to be "off" at that point?
>
> No.
>
> But if a person eats the mike, they will just sound bad and the sound will
> get nasty before it ever gets to the console.
>

I wondered if the mic itself could be overloaded that way, and a bunch of
local shmexperts have said no. I can't explain why, but I don't agree with
them.

> If the console clips, that will make it a thousand times worse, mind you.
> But it still starts out pretty bad.
>
>>It may be obvious by now that we're doing battle with a singer who loves
>>to
>>eat the mic. If he was consistent about it, it SEEMS the problem would be
>>easier to solve.
>
> He probably can't hear himself, and I suspect IEMs aren't in your budget.
> --scott

The drummer bought the wrong set of IEMs, tried them once, put them back in
the package, and hasn't used them in months. He bought the set without dual
drivers, so he hears no bass (from his kick, or my bass). Another drummer
told him "Do not buy the single driver version. I'm telling you - you won't
be happy." So he bought them anyway.

Our singer's about to experiment with them, and buy them from the drummer if
he likes them. But he's complaining about how shmexperts tell him he'll feel
isolated blah blah blah....

You're right, though. He says he has trouble hearing himself. That's odd. I
stand near his Yamaha floor monitor, and I can hear him just fine. Too well
sometimes.

Don Pearce[_3_]

August 14th 10, 08:00 PM

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:57:34 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>> Short singer with glasses. :-) Tends to eat the mic. Says he doesn't,
>>> but photographs recently proved him wrong. The result is some awful
>>> distortion when he sings loud peaks
>>
>> That just means that somebody wasn't paying attention and didn't set the
>> preamp gain or record level correctly.
>>
>
>
>If we set the input gain for (just to pick a number) singing 2" from the
>mic, but the singer closes that distance to zero (eating mic) once per
>minute, is the gain adjustment going to be "off" at that point?
>
>It may be obvious by now that we're doing battle with a singer who loves to
>eat the mic. If he was consistent about it, it SEEMS the problem would be
>easier to solve.
>

Tape a second mic alongside the first, but a few inches back - record
from that. Been done many, many times.

d

JoeSpareBedroom[_2_]

August 14th 10, 08:05 PM

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:57:34 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Short singer with glasses. :-) Tends to eat the mic. Says he doesn't,
>>>> but photographs recently proved him wrong. The result is some awful
>>>> distortion when he sings loud peaks
>>>
>>> That just means that somebody wasn't paying attention and didn't set the
>>> preamp gain or record level correctly.
>>>
>>
>>
>>If we set the input gain for (just to pick a number) singing 2" from the
>>mic, but the singer closes that distance to zero (eating mic) once per
>>minute, is the gain adjustment going to be "off" at that point?
>>
>>It may be obvious by now that we're doing battle with a singer who loves
>>to
>>eat the mic. If he was consistent about it, it SEEMS the problem would be
>>easier to solve.
>>
>
> Tape a second mic alongside the first, but a few inches back - record
> from that. Been done many, many times.
>
> d

We're not recording. I should've explained this in my first message. This is
about live performance. I suppose I could do the same thing, though....

hank alrich

August 14th 10, 08:43 PM

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?

You listen. Proximity effect starts well away from the mic, in
close-mic'd terms. The net effect includes the specific vocalist, the
room, and the sound system if this is live.

In just the last two weeks I have probably given a half-dozen
mini-lectures about how to use a mic live. "Wow, this mic sounds really
muddy". "So take your teeth off of the grill..."

Mics want a little breathing room. Listen to the singer in the setting
with the system in question and hope that once a good distance is
determined the singer will be able to hold to that. If not, pull them
back further or accept a lot of mud in the vox with attendant loss of
intelligibility.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

hank alrich

August 14th 10, 08:43 PM

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
> > Short singer with glasses. :-) Tends to eat the mic. Says he doesn't, but
> > photographs recently proved him wrong. The result is some awful distortion
> > when he sings loud peaks
>
> That just means that somebody wasn't paying attention and
> didn't set the preamp gain or record level correctly.
>
> > There are so many factors at work, and our band's not big (or rich) enough
> > to afford a sound man who can track down the problem WHILE we're playing.
>
> Get a better gig, at least for one night, Or have everyone
> in the band chip in ten bucks to have someone with
> experience come over during a sound check or for the first
> 15 minutes of the gig, tell you what you're doing wrong, and
> make it right.
>
> Working very close to a mic (unless it's an omnidirectional
> mic) tends to emphasize low frequencies, often as much as
> 10-12 dB so it may be necessary to use a low cut filter to
> compensate for that. Or it may be a useful part of his vocal
> sound that you'll want to retain. This is where proper gain
> setting comes in, and someone really needs to make that
> adjustment while he's singing.

Those boosted lows can make proper gain staging little more than a
theoretical exercise. When it's raining mud umbrellas collapse.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

hank alrich

August 14th 10, 08:43 PM

JoeSpareBedroom > wrote:

> "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
>
>
> Short singer with glasses. :-) Tends to eat the mic. Says he doesn't, but
> photographs recently proved him wrong. The result is some awful distortion
> when he sings loud peaks (James Brown songs and similar styles). It was
> suggested to us that the problem might be our mixer settings, but the
> problem persists in two clubs where we use our mics and the club's mixer. Of
> course, the settings in these clubs also could've been wrong...
>
> There are so many factors at work, and our band's not big (or rich) enough
> to afford a sound man who can track down the problem WHILE we're playing.

If he's eating the mic he's making mud pie. It's down to him. Accept no
bull****. Hold him to it. The pics tell the truth for those who can't
just listen to a track and realize why it's muddy.

There are no settings that will fix this after the fact of the ****-up.
When input is screwed everything downstream is screwed. Then the spill
from the monitors puts a touch of that crap back into play and the
audiences, over a period of years and years and years, become
conditioned to forget about trying to hear the words. The next step is
writers who then assume ****ty lyrics are okay.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

Scott Dorsey

August 14th 10, 08:45 PM

JoeSpareBedroom > wrote:
>>
>> But if a person eats the mike, they will just sound bad and the sound will
>> get nasty before it ever gets to the console.
>>
>
>I wondered if the mic itself could be overloaded that way, and a bunch of
>local shmexperts have said no. I can't explain why, but I don't agree with
>them.

It's not so much the mike being overloaded, it's got more to do with the
mouth than the microphone. If you stuck someone's ear into your mouth,
it would sound just as bad.

>The drummer bought the wrong set of IEMs, tried them once, put them back in
>the package, and hasn't used them in months. He bought the set without dual
>drivers, so he hears no bass (from his kick, or my bass). Another drummer
>told him "Do not buy the single driver version. I'm telling you - you won't
>be happy." So he bought them anyway.
>
>Our singer's about to experiment with them, and buy them from the drummer if
>he likes them. But he's complaining about how shmexperts tell him he'll feel
>isolated blah blah blah....

That's good, you want him to feel isolated, you want him to hear a lot of
himself so he can hear what is going on. He probably won't like them,
because it will show up too many things wrong.

The thing about IEMs, though, isn't the cost of the hardware, but the fact
that the PA operator has to cut a separate mix for them, and that usually
means hiring someone decent if not a separate monitor mixer.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

JoeSpareBedroom[_2_]

August 14th 10, 08:54 PM

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom > wrote:
>>>
>>> But if a person eats the mike, they will just sound bad and the sound
>>> will
>>> get nasty before it ever gets to the console.
>>>
>>
>>I wondered if the mic itself could be overloaded that way, and a bunch of
>>local shmexperts have said no. I can't explain why, but I don't agree with
>>them.
>
> It's not so much the mike being overloaded, it's got more to do with the
> mouth than the microphone. If you stuck someone's ear into your mouth,
> it would sound just as bad.
>
>>The drummer bought the wrong set of IEMs, tried them once, put them back
>>in
>>the package, and hasn't used them in months. He bought the set without
>>dual
>>drivers, so he hears no bass (from his kick, or my bass). Another drummer
>>told him "Do not buy the single driver version. I'm telling you - you
>>won't
>>be happy." So he bought them anyway.
>>
>>Our singer's about to experiment with them, and buy them from the drummer
>>if
>>he likes them. But he's complaining about how shmexperts tell him he'll
>>feel
>>isolated blah blah blah....
>
> That's good, you want him to feel isolated, you want him to hear a lot of
> himself so he can hear what is going on. He probably won't like them,
> because it will show up too many things wrong.
>
> The thing about IEMs, though, isn't the cost of the hardware, but the fact
> that the PA operator has to cut a separate mix for them, and that usually
> means hiring someone decent if not a separate monitor mixer.
> --scott

This was our plan for the IEMs - I suspect it's not a perfect plan:

What we do now is run AUX1 & AUX2 to a separate power amp for our two
monitors. AUX1 is the floor monitor for the singer. AUX2 is for the drummer,
who's deaf. :-) Each guy can choose what he wants from the input channels
(vocals, guitar, keys, sax, kick drum).

I was thinking I could run the AUX1 out to a separate mixer (small Behringer
owned by the drummer, but unused) and plug the IEMs into the phones out.
Maintain the same mix the singer wanted before. But also, run the direct out
from my bass amp to the mixer and let him blend in some of that if he wants.
The obvious flaw is that he's got the wrong IEMs for bass. At least in
theory, it would work if he coughs up the cash for the right IEMs at some
point.

It's not that loud a band, so he's not going to get a lot of bass bleed from
outside the IEMs.

What's interesting is that we usually have musician friends and civilians
acting as quality control staff in the audience. They tell us our mix is
consistently beautiful and rarely too loud. It's really just this one detail
that's driving us nuts.

JoeSpareBedroom[_2_]

August 14th 10, 08:55 PM

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>> > Short singer with glasses. :-) Tends to eat the mic. Says he doesn't,
>> > but
>> > photographs recently proved him wrong. The result is some awful
>> > distortion
>> > when he sings loud peaks
>>
>> That just means that somebody wasn't paying attention and
>> didn't set the preamp gain or record level correctly.
>>
>> > There are so many factors at work, and our band's not big (or rich)
>> > enough
>> > to afford a sound man who can track down the problem WHILE we're
>> > playing.
>>
>> Get a better gig, at least for one night, Or have everyone
>> in the band chip in ten bucks to have someone with
>> experience come over during a sound check or for the first
>> 15 minutes of the gig, tell you what you're doing wrong, and
>> make it right.
>>
>> Working very close to a mic (unless it's an omnidirectional
>> mic) tends to emphasize low frequencies, often as much as
>> 10-12 dB so it may be necessary to use a low cut filter to
>> compensate for that. Or it may be a useful part of his vocal
>> sound that you'll want to retain. This is where proper gain
>> setting comes in, and someone really needs to make that
>> adjustment while he's singing.
>
> Those boosted lows can make proper gain staging little more than a
> theoretical exercise. When it's raining mud umbrellas collapse.

I use the low cut for the singer's channel.

JoeSpareBedroom[_2_]

August 14th 10, 08:57 PM

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom > wrote:
>
>> "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
>>
>>
>> Short singer with glasses. :-) Tends to eat the mic. Says he doesn't,
>> but
>> photographs recently proved him wrong. The result is some awful
>> distortion
>> when he sings loud peaks (James Brown songs and similar styles). It was
>> suggested to us that the problem might be our mixer settings, but the
>> problem persists in two clubs where we use our mics and the club's mixer.
>> Of
>> course, the settings in these clubs also could've been wrong...
>>
>> There are so many factors at work, and our band's not big (or rich)
>> enough
>> to afford a sound man who can track down the problem WHILE we're playing.
>
> If he's eating the mic he's making mud pie. It's down to him. Accept no
> bull****. Hold him to it. The pics tell the truth for those who can't
> just listen to a track and realize why it's muddy.
>
> There are no settings that will fix this after the fact of the ****-up.
> When input is screwed everything downstream is screwed. Then the spill
> from the monitors puts a touch of that crap back into play and the
> audiences, over a period of years and years and years, become
> conditioned to forget about trying to hear the words. The next step is
> writers who then assume ****ty lyrics are okay.

Wanna be our manager? Or enforcer? I'll pay you to break kneecaps.

I sent him a bunch of youtube links showing real singers keeping their
distance from the mic. Delbert McClinton, Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Ray
Charles. He sent me a video of Billy Joel singing so close that his lips
were bumping the mic. The tennis match continues.

Mike Rivers

August 14th 10, 09:06 PM

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> If we set the input gain for (just to pick a number) singing 2" from the
> mic, but the singer closes that distance to zero (eating mic) once per
> minute, is the gain adjustment going to be "off" at that point?

It depends on how you set the gain when he's singing 2" from
the mic. This, in turn, depends on what kind of metering, if
any, your equipment offers, and it also depends on your
understanding of what those meters are telling you. But why
make the setting when he's 2" from the mic when you know
that he's going to sing with his lips touching the mic? Tell
him to sing that way and really belt it out, make sure it's
not distorting when he does that, and you're done.

> It may be obvious by now that we're doing battle with a singer who loves to
> eat the mic. If he was consistent about it, it SEEMS the problem would be
> easier to solve.

If he's inconsistent and that causes his voice to drop out
of the desired place in the mix the mix (usually up front),
that's a different problem. You might be able to help him
out with a compressor, but it's better for him to develop
his mic technique so that he can use changes in distance to
an advantage rather than a detriment. Show him what he's
doing. Record the mix and let him hear what he sounds like
when he's pulling those stupid mic tricks without realizing
what he's doing.

I suppose you could get a more experienced singer, but he's
probably the leader of the band, or the one who owns the PA
system.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

JoeSpareBedroom[_2_]

August 14th 10, 09:10 PM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>> If we set the input gain for (just to pick a number) singing 2" from the
>> mic, but the singer closes that distance to zero (eating mic) once per
>> minute, is the gain adjustment going to be "off" at that point?
>
> It depends on how you set the gain when he's singing 2" from the mic.
> This, in turn, depends on what kind of metering, if any, your equipment
> offers, and it also depends on your understanding of what those meters are
> telling you. But why make the setting when he's 2" from the mic when you
> know that he's going to sing with his lips touching the mic? Tell him to
> sing that way and really belt it out, make sure it's not distorting when
> he does that, and you're done.
>
>> It may be obvious by now that we're doing battle with a singer who loves
>> to eat the mic. If he was consistent about it, it SEEMS the problem would
>> be easier to solve.
>
> If he's inconsistent and that causes his voice to drop out of the desired
> place in the mix the mix (usually up front), that's a different problem.
> You might be able to help him out with a compressor, but it's better for
> him to develop his mic technique so that he can use changes in distance to
> an advantage rather than a detriment. Show him what he's doing. Record the
> mix and let him hear what he sounds like when he's pulling those stupid
> mic tricks without realizing what he's doing.
>
> I suppose you could get a more experienced singer, but he's probably the
> leader of the band, or the one who owns the PA system.

I own the mixer (Yamaha EMX-5014) and the separate amp which runs the
monitors. He owns the speakers. And I'm always scouting for another singer.
First criterion: Must know how to say "Sure, let's try that, if it helps."

Mike Rivers

August 14th 10, 09:23 PM

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> I wondered if the mic itself could be overloaded that way, and a bunch of
> local shmexperts have said no. I can't explain why, but I don't agree with
> them.

It takes a lot to overload a mic, but as Scott pointed out,
most mics are designed for a little air between the singer
and the mic. But he's seen the videos, and a lot of
performers really do eat the mic. You just need to work with
the singer and the sound equipment to get a good sound that
way. But then it will sound thin when he pulls back two
inches. This is the technique that he needs to learn (or
unlearn).

> Our singer's about to experiment with them, and buy them from the drummer if
> he likes them. But he's complaining about how shmexperts tell him he'll feel
> isolated blah blah blah....

He's right. There's much more to in-ear monitoring than just
sticking buttons in your ears and feeding them a signal. For
one thing, you need to protect against bad things happening.
Feedback right in your ear is much more damaging than when
it's coming from a speaker. You can always turn away from
the speaker or put your fingers in your ears. With IEMs, all
you an do is yank them out a little too late. You may need
to put some effects in the in-ear mix so he won't feel like
he's singing in a dead room, and you may need to add some
ambience. Sensaphonics, I believe, makes an IEM system that
has an ambient microphone as part of the control unit and
lets the performer mix in a little of the live stage sound
so it sounds like he's not isolated. Or you can do this with
a mic that goes to the IEM mixes.

> You're right, though. He says he has trouble hearing himself. That's odd. I
> stand near his Yamaha floor monitor, and I can hear him just fine. Too well
> sometimes.

That's psychoacoustics for you. When a singer or guitarist
sees a monitor in front of him, he becomes deaf. Sometimes
when I'm mixing monitors from the house console a singer
will tell me that he can't hear himself, and I'm thinking,
geez, I can hear his monitor from back in the house, and
that's even with it pointed in the other direction. But
perhaps working on the correct position for the monitor
could help. Have him move around while he's singing and get
a sense of where he can hear himself best. There's a fair
amount of directionality, particularly with the higher
mid-range that brings out articulation. When you and he
figure out what's the best sounding path between the cabinet
and his ear, have him stand where he wants to stand when
he's singing and aim the monitor accordingly. Make sure that
it's not firing above his head or into his groin. Wedges are
built to look like wedges, and the angle that they're
pointing is fixed by the woodwork. I work festivals where
players are often seated and the monitors, unless they're
too far away, shoot over the heads of the players. I'll ask
the grounds crew for a couple of scraps of 2x4 to tilt the
monitors forward to get them aimed right.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[email protected]

August 14th 10, 09:34 PM

On 2010-08-14 said:
<big snip>
>> Those boosted lows can make proper gain staging little more than a
>> theoretical exercise. When it's raining mud umbrellas collapse.
>I use the low cut for the singer's channel.

SOunds to me like you need to use the singer cut and find a
singer who can learn to work a microphone properly. TEll
him to use the ****ing wind screen or get off your
bandstand.

Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

J. Porter Clark

August 14th 10, 09:49 PM

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

>Sometimes mike-eating is caused by poor monitoring; folks just cannot hear
>themselves and they can't hear what they're doing to the sound. Sometimes
>it's just caused by sloppy mike technique. A big foam ball or some spiky
>stuff on the end of the mike will cure it.

Nonstandard phantom power wiring will also work. 8-)

JoeSpareBedroom[_2_]

August 14th 10, 09:54 PM

"J. Porter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
>>Sometimes mike-eating is caused by poor monitoring; folks just cannot hear
>>themselves and they can't hear what they're doing to the sound. Sometimes
>>it's just caused by sloppy mike technique. A big foam ball or some spiky
>>stuff on the end of the mike will cure it.
>
> Nonstandard phantom power wiring will also work. 8-)
>

LL Bean sells shock collars for training hunting dogs.....add a foot pedal
and ba da bing. Problem solved. But it might be tough getting the singer to
wear the thing.

hank alrich

August 15th 10, 02:03 AM

JoeSpareBedroom > wrote:

> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > JoeSpareBedroom > wrote:
> >
> >> "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
> >>
> >>
> >> Short singer with glasses. :-) Tends to eat the mic. Says he doesn't,
> >> but
> >> photographs recently proved him wrong. The result is some awful
> >> distortion
> >> when he sings loud peaks (James Brown songs and similar styles). It was
> >> suggested to us that the problem might be our mixer settings, but the
> >> problem persists in two clubs where we use our mics and the club's mixer.
> >> Of
> >> course, the settings in these clubs also could've been wrong...
> >>
> >> There are so many factors at work, and our band's not big (or rich)
> >> enough
> >> to afford a sound man who can track down the problem WHILE we're playing.
> >
> > If he's eating the mic he's making mud pie. It's down to him. Accept no
> > bull****. Hold him to it. The pics tell the truth for those who can't
> > just listen to a track and realize why it's muddy.
> >
> > There are no settings that will fix this after the fact of the ****-up.
> > When input is screwed everything downstream is screwed. Then the spill
> > from the monitors puts a touch of that crap back into play and the
> > audiences, over a period of years and years and years, become
> > conditioned to forget about trying to hear the words. The next step is
> > writers who then assume ****ty lyrics are okay.
>
>
> Wanna be our manager? Or enforcer? I'll pay you to break kneecaps.
>
> I sent him a bunch of youtube links showing real singers keeping their
> distance from the mic. Delbert McClinton, Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Ray
> Charles. He sent me a video of Billy Joel singing so close that his lips
> were bumping the mic. The tennis match continues.

So ask him, "Are you Billy Joel?" <g>

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

ChrisCoaster

August 15th 10, 02:20 AM

On Aug 14, 9:47*am, "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?
________________

These days, lips touching the mic seems to be the norm for most music
styles.

Sad.

-CC

[email protected]

August 15th 10, 02:31 AM

On 2010-08-14 (hankalrich) said:
>> I sent him a bunch of youtube links showing real singers keeping
>>their distance from the mic. Delbert McClinton, Sinatra, Tony
>>Bennett, Ray Charles. He sent me a video of Billy Joel singing so
>>close that his lips were bumping the mic. The tennis match
>continues.
>So ask him, "Are you Billy Joel?" <g>
INdeed. Then explain to this amateur from karaoke night
that if a blind man can keep an appropriate mic distance
then he sure can too.

THIs means that brother Ray required decent monitoring for
sure, at least while learning. EVen then it helped.

A guy who used to provide sr equipment for Stevie Wonder
told me a story back in the '70's about STevie having two
small monitors, and two microphones on his keyboard rig, as
he would set up with multiple keyboards around him, and each
monitor monitored the signal from its proximate microphone,
so STevie could tell which mic he was closest to, and obtain
the proper distance from it. DOn't know if he was pulling
my leg or not, but ...

IT can be done. Mr. Karaoke needs to unlearn some bad
habits, or give up singing professionally.

Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

Arny Krueger

August 15th 10, 12:49 PM

"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.

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).

I've never told her about the big chunk of foam that is right inside the
woven wire ball...

The good news is that she can sing without popping, windscreen or not.

Scott Dorsey

August 15th 10, 02:27 PM

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

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Arny Krueger

August 16th 10, 01:23 AM

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> 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.

Or not.

>> 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.

It's not a SM-58

>> 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

I started out with 5 SM57s about a decade back. We've definately moved very
far from that.

This particular room has a fairly huge presence peak of its own. Very harsh
sounding.

Peter Larsen[_3_]

August 16th 10, 05:00 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:

>> She may be right.

> Or not.

>> 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.

>> 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

> I started out with 5 SM57s about a decade back. We've definately
> moved very far from that.

With a suitable preamp the SM57 sits soo nice in a mix, but I wouldn't want
to deploy it for singing without its foam screen.

> This particular room has a fairly huge presence peak of its own. Very
> harsh sounding.

Windows?

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

JoeSpareBedroom[_2_]

August 16th 10, 11:57 AM

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k...

>> This particular room has a fairly huge presence peak of its own. Very
>> harsh sounding.
>
> Windows?
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

Someday when I'm in the mood for a stomach ache, I'll ask you guys for ways
of handling a room in which my band played 3 times this summer. Windows
beginning 3 feet off the floor, all around the gazebo-shaped room. Tile
floor. Peaked gazebo ceiling. When I stopped in to book the gig one quiet
afternoon, it was tricky talking to the owner in the middle of the room. You
can imagine what bands sound like there.

Scott Dorsey

August 16th 10, 01:35 PM

JoeSpareBedroom > wrote:
>Someday when I'm in the mood for a stomach ache, I'll ask you guys for ways
>of handling a room in which my band played 3 times this summer. Windows
>beginning 3 feet off the floor, all around the gazebo-shaped room. Tile
>floor. Peaked gazebo ceiling. When I stopped in to book the gig one quiet
>afternoon, it was tricky talking to the owner in the middle of the room. You
>can imagine what bands sound like there.

1. Carpet remnants

2. Rented pipe and drape, as heavy as possible.

3. If you can find it, rented fibreglass banners behind the drape. Usually
available from film rental places.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

JoeSpareBedroom[_2_]

August 16th 10, 02:19 PM

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom > wrote:
>>Someday when I'm in the mood for a stomach ache, I'll ask you guys for
>>ways
>>of handling a room in which my band played 3 times this summer. Windows
>>beginning 3 feet off the floor, all around the gazebo-shaped room. Tile
>>floor. Peaked gazebo ceiling. When I stopped in to book the gig one quiet
>>afternoon, it was tricky talking to the owner in the middle of the room.
>>You
>>can imagine what bands sound like there.
>
>
> 1. Carpet remnants
>
> 2. Rented pipe and drape, as heavy as possible.
>
> 3. If you can find it, rented fibreglass banners behind the drape.
> Usually
> available from film rental places.
> --scott

We did something similar at one point: Rented 8' high fabric-covered cubicle
dividers. Shared the expense with another band which was playing the night
before us. Worked nicely. But the restaurant owner said "no more". Claimed
it kept is wait staff from seeing what was going on at dining tables. He has
bands set up in the wrong place in the room, but being a club owner, his
ears are plugged with concrete.

A couple of bands do OK there without rented padding. They attract a large
crowd of fat chicks. They absorb the sound.

Arny Krueger

August 16th 10, 04:53 PM

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>> She may be right.
>
>> Or not.
>
>>> 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?

>>> 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

>> I started out with 5 SM57s about a decade back. We've
>> definately moved very far from that.

> With a suitable preamp the SM57 sits soo nice in a mix,
> but I wouldn't want to deploy it for singing without its
> foam screen.

I used SM57s with foam screens for a couple of years. It was cheaper to get
smoother mics than buy a bunch of high end preamps.

>> This particular room has a fairly huge presence peak of
>> its own. Very harsh sounding.

> Windows?

Yes, and painted cinderblock and polished wood and stone.

JoeSpareBedroom[_2_]

August 16th 10, 04:57 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in
> message
>
>
>> A couple of bands do OK there without rented padding.
>> They attract a large crowd of fat chicks. They absorb the
>> sound.
>
> The effects of people of any weight is as you observe, very important.
>
> The room I work in is actually not too bad sounding with 500+ people in
> it.
>
> With 200 or less, it can be really hard to live with.
>
> Thing is, the room sounds bad enough with 300 people in it that it is
> questionable whether we'll ever get the other 200 people to stop by.

The funny (?) thing about the room I mentioned is that the owner was told by
his architect (?) that it would be perfect for bands.

Pass the ammo.

Arny Krueger

August 16th 10, 04:57 PM

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in
message

> A couple of bands do OK there without rented padding.
> They attract a large crowd of fat chicks. They absorb the
> sound.

The effects of people of any weight is as you observe, very important.

The room I work in is actually not too bad sounding with 500+ people in it.

With 200 or less, it can be really hard to live with.

Thing is, the room sounds bad enough with 300 people in it that it is
questionable whether we'll ever get the other 200 people to stop by.

Arny Krueger

August 16th 10, 05:47 PM

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in
message
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>
>>> A couple of bands do OK there without rented padding.
>>> They attract a large crowd of fat chicks. They absorb
>>> the sound.
>>
>> The effects of people of any weight is as you observe,
>> very important. The room I work in is actually not too bad sounding with
>> 500+ people in it.
>>
>> With 200 or less, it can be really hard to live with.
>>
>> Thing is, the room sounds bad enough with 300 people in
>> it that it is questionable whether we'll ever get the
>> other 200 people to stop by.
>
>
> The funny (?) thing about the room I mentioned is that
> the owner was told by his architect (?) that it would be
> perfect for bands.

> Pass the ammo.

Depends which kind of band. A brass band can tolerate a fair amount of
reverberence. Most contemporary music is best in a far less reberent room.
Pipe organs and choirs generally sound best in more reverberent rooms.

JoeSpareBedroom[_2_]

August 16th 10, 05:52 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in
> message
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>>
>>>> A couple of bands do OK there without rented padding.
>>>> They attract a large crowd of fat chicks. They absorb
>>>> the sound.
>>>
>>> The effects of people of any weight is as you observe,
>>> very important. The room I work in is actually not too bad sounding with
>>> 500+ people in it.
>>>
>>> With 200 or less, it can be really hard to live with.
>>>
>>> Thing is, the room sounds bad enough with 300 people in
>>> it that it is questionable whether we'll ever get the
>>> other 200 people to stop by.
>>
>>
>> The funny (?) thing about the room I mentioned is that
>> the owner was told by his architect (?) that it would be
>> perfect for bands.
>
>> Pass the ammo.
>
> Depends which kind of band. A brass band can tolerate a fair amount of
> reverberence. Most contemporary music is best in a far less reberent room.
> Pipe organs and choirs generally sound best in more reverberent rooms.

All rock bands except one steel band, and I'm sure the owner made his
"architect" fully aware of this fact.

JoeSpareBedroom[_2_]

August 17th 10, 12:35 PM

hank alrich

August 17th 10, 04:25 PM

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/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

Peter Larsen[_3_]

August 17th 10, 04:50 PM

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

Richard Kuschel

August 17th 10, 06:43 PM

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.

Scott Dorsey

August 17th 10, 07:08 PM

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."

[email protected]

August 17th 10, 08:18 PM

On 2010-08-17 (ScottDorsey) said:
>>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.

INdeed it was, and I"ve used it for myself and other
vocalists. A 421 is a good all round utility player for a
lot of close mic applications imho. IT might look funny,
but the roll off can make your job easier with many
vocalists. WOn't work with the handheld karaoke singer
types that think they're supposed to be acrobats etc. very
well, but for those who are actually trying to perform music
and can work a mic on a stand it's a good choice.

>There's a Byrds album with a photo of them singing into some of the
>early cream-colored ones.
I'd forgotten about that, but yes they used them, as did
many.

Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

Arny Krueger

August 17th 10, 11:27 PM

"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.