world class live vocal mic?

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

Looking to buy a very top end vocal mic for live stage use

price is not really a problem but my artist has horrible mic technique, and
lots of trouble with plosives

his voice tends to sound too thin most of the time

where can I look to get a mic that still is able to capture off axis,
distant seated male singer, , solo figerpicked guitar , sometime backed up
with a bass and harmonica

is the 441 a legit option, I have a very old(but perfect 421(not ver 2) that
is close but still to weird off axis

I am not thrilled with the Neumann 105 , maybe a 103? or a 414?

open to suggestions

George

[Scott Dorsey]

George's Pro Sound Co. > wrote:
>Looking to buy a very top end vocal mic for live stage use
>
>price is not really a problem but my artist has horrible mic technique, and
>lots of trouble with plosives
>
>his voice tends to sound too thin most of the time
>
>where can I look to get a mic that still is able to capture off axis,
>distant seated male singer, , solo figerpicked guitar , sometime backed up
>with a bass and harmonica
>
>is the 441 a legit option, I have a very old(but perfect 421(not ver 2) that
>is close but still to weird off axis

The 441 will pop too easily with those people. You might consider the 431,
which is harder to pop. You should have some 431s around anyway.

>I am not thrilled with the Neumann 105 , maybe a 103? or a 414?

I like the KMS105 a lot when you want something with that exaggerated
brightness, but it's not a good mike for a P-popper. You will
find the gain before feedback on the TLM103 and 414 will be poorer than the
others listed.

You know.... I would look into an EV RE-16, actually. That is a hard mike
to pop, and it sounds good on and off-axis, and the GBF is quite good.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/13/2010 11:45 AM, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
> Looking to buy a very top end vocal mic for live stage use
>
> price is not really a problem but my artist has horrible mic technique, and
> lots of trouble with plosives
>
> his voice tends to sound too thin most of the time
>
> where can I look to get a mic that still is able to capture off axis,
> distant seated male singer, , solo figerpicked guitar , sometime backed up
> with a bass and harmonica

You don't need a top end vocal mic, you need a better singer
(or he needs to be told by someone more important to his
food chain than you that he needs some stage coaching).

> I am not thrilled with the Neumann 105

It's a great mic for a good singer, but hard to get anything
useful from it if the singer has a crappy voice or poor
stage technique.

Ever try a Beyer M88?


--
"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

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[PStamler]

I too would recommend trying the E-V RE16. It has the advantage of
being Variable-D, meaning the tonal quality doesn't change appreciably
when the mouth-to-mic distance changes.

Another worth checking out (though not Variable-D) is the Shure KSM9,
set to cardioid pattern.

Peace,
Paul

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/13/2010 11:45 AM, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
>> Looking to buy a very top end vocal mic for live stage use
>>
>> price is not really a problem but my artist has horrible mic technique,
>> and
>> lots of trouble with plosives
>>
>> his voice tends to sound too thin most of the time
>>
>> where can I look to get a mic that still is able to capture off axis,
>> distant seated male singer, , solo figerpicked guitar , sometime backed
>> up
>> with a bass and harmonica
>
> You don't need a top end vocal mic, you need a better singer (or he needs
> to be told by someone more important to his food chain than you that he
> needs some stage coaching).
>
>> I am not thrilled with the Neumann 105
>
> It's a great mic for a good singer, but hard to get anything useful from
> it if the singer has a crappy voice or poor stage technique.
>
> Ever try a Beyer M88?
>
Mike, yes a better mic technique would be the best thing I could hope for
but that wasn't the hand I was dealt.

and I have 8 m88, way to beefy up close
I am almost thinking of using a omni and putting him on inears
George

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"PStamler" > wrote in message
...
>I too would recommend trying the E-V RE16. It has the advantage of
> being Variable-D, meaning the tonal quality doesn't change appreciably
> when the mouth-to-mic distance changes.
>
> Another worth checking out (though not Variable-D) is the Shure KSM9,
> set to cardioid pattern.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

Thanks for the ideas
George

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Richard Webb" > wrote in
message ...
> George writes:
>> price is not really a problem but my artist has horrible mic
>> technique, and lots of trouble with plosives
>
> What's his vocal range? i.e. baritone, tenor?
>
>> his voice tends to sound too thin most of the time
>
>> where can I look to get a mic that still is able to capture off
>> axis, distant seated male singer, , solo figerpicked guitar ,
>> sometime backed up with a bass and harmonica
>
> Separate mic for the guitar I assume?

yes seperate, just mentioned the guitar to help visualize hios style, am not
having guitar issues
>
> First, multiple suggestions for the Ev re16. I can vouch
> for those.
>
> IF just for vocals, I'd try the old school 421 or even the
> re-20 see how comfortable he is with either of those.
> Try the 16 first though since his technique isn't real
> great.
>
> \
I am using my old 421 (not series 2) right now and it is close , but still
too much variation from on axis to slightly off axis
I can try the re-20 from my mic locker but I see visual impact issues with a
mic that big
george
> Regards,
> Richard
> ... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
> --
> | Remove .my.foot for email
> | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
> | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Scott Dorsey]

George's Pro Sound Co. > wrote:
>> \
>I am using my old 421 (not series 2) right now and it is close , but still
>too much variation from on axis to slightly off axis
>I can try the re-20 from my mic locker but I see visual impact issues with a
>mic that big

Try it. If you like the sound but the visuals are a problem, try getting
an RE-16 or RE-11.
--scott


Or... I hate to even mention it... a 644....
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/13/2010 1:47 PM, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

> I am almost thinking of using a omni and putting him on inears

It's probably the best approach.

--
"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

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[[email protected]]

On 2010-12-13 said:
>yes seperate, just mentioned the guitar to help visualize hios
>style, am not having guitar issues
THought so, just making sure <grin>.

>> First, multiple suggestions for the Ev re16. I can vouch
>> for those.
>> IF just for vocals, I'd try the old school 421 or even the
>> re-20 see how comfortable he is with either of those.
>> Try the 16 first though since his technique isn't real
>> great.
>I am using my old 421 (not series 2) right now and it is close ,
>but still too much variation from on axis to slightly off axis
>I can try the re-20 from my mic locker but I see visual impact
>issues with a mic that big
YEp, but if the 20 is doing good for him as Scott says, if
the visuals are a problem the 16 should be good results
also. But, if you've already got the 20 that'll help guide
you before you spring, or he does, for a 16.




Richard webb,

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Richard Webb wrote:

> First, multiple suggestions for the Ev re16. I can vouch
> for those.

> IF just for vocals, I'd try the old school 421 or even the
> re-20 see how comfortable he is with either of those.
> Try the 16 first though since his technique isn't real
> great.

What reasons are there not to go the headset route?

> Regards,
> Richard

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>Richard Webb wrote:
>
>> First, multiple suggestions for the Ev re16. I can vouch
>> for those.
>
>> IF just for vocals, I'd try the old school 421 or even the
>> re-20 see how comfortable he is with either of those.
>> Try the 16 first though since his technique isn't real
>> great.
>
>What reasons are there not to go the headset route?

He's a popper.
--scott


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

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

George writes:
> price is not really a problem but my artist has horrible mic
> technique, and lots of trouble with plosives

What's his vocal range? i.e. baritone, tenor?

> his voice tends to sound too thin most of the time

> where can I look to get a mic that still is able to capture off
> axis, distant seated male singer, , solo figerpicked guitar ,
> sometime backed up with a bass and harmonica

Separate mic for the guitar I assume?

First, multiple suggestions for the Ev re16. I can vouch
for those.

IF just for vocals, I'd try the old school 421 or even the
re-20 see how comfortable he is with either of those.
Try the 16 first though since his technique isn't real
great.


Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k...
> Richard Webb wrote:
>
>> First, multiple suggestions for the Ev re16. I can vouch
>> for those.
>
>> IF just for vocals, I'd try the old school 421 or even the
>> re-20 see how comfortable he is with either of those.
>> Try the 16 first though since his technique isn't real
>> great.
>
> What reasons are there not to go the headset route?
>
it is hard to"work" a headset for draamatic effect, breath noises and
general poorer sound quality overall are reasons I reserve headset for
spoken word applications, I have several sennheisers for my wireless systems

[RD Jones]

On Dec 13, 10:54*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> The 441 will pop too easily with those people. *You might consider the 431,
> which is harder to pop. *You should have some 431s around anyway.

Ditto the recommendation of the MD431.

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/13/2010 7:57 PM, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

> it is hard to"work" a headset for draamatic effect

Yeah, but if he's not doing that very well anyway . . .

> breath noises and
> general poorer sound quality overall are reasons I reserve headset for
> spoken word applications,

I suppose those singing dancers that we see on TV wearing
headset mics aren't really singing anyway. Maybe you should
try that with your singer - play a good track and just mute
his mic. ;)


--
"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

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[geoff]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 12/13/2010 7:57 PM, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
>
>> it is hard to"work" a headset for draamatic effect
>
> Yeah, but if he's not doing that very well anyway . . .
>
>> breath noises and
>> general poorer sound quality overall are reasons I reserve headset
>> for spoken word applications,
>
> I suppose those singing dancers that we see on TV wearing
> headset mics aren't really singing anyway. Maybe you should
> try that with your singer - play a good track and just mute
> his mic. ;)

RODE S1 is almost impossible to pop, within reason. Maybe worth a try. Or
maybe there is an S2 by now....


geoff

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> Peter Larsen > wrote:
>> Richard Webb wrote:
>>
>>> First, multiple suggestions for the Ev re16. I can
>>> vouch for those.
>>
>>> IF just for vocals, I'd try the old school 421 or even
>>> the re-20 see how comfortable he is with either of
>>> those.
>>> Try the 16 first though since his technique isn't real
>>> great.
>>
>> What reasons are there not to go the headset route?
>
> He's a popper.

Interesting. We have a goodly collection of Countryman E6 headset mics, and
never ever have a problem with popping.

Reasons:

1. Omni capsules.

2. The correct positioning of the microphone (according to Countryman) is
well outside the path of any high velocity air.

Another post (from George) gives what seems to be a more relevant reason not
to go the headset route:

"It is hard to"work" a headset for dramatic effect" Actually, more like
impossible.

As far as sound quality goes, headset mics and hand held mics have a strong
tendency to simply sound different. Some voices benefit, some lose.

[hank alrich]

George's Pro Sound Co. > wrote:

> Looking to buy a very top end vocal mic for live stage use
>
> price is not really a problem but my artist has horrible mic technique, and
> lots of trouble with plosives
>
> his voice tends to sound too thin most of the time
>
> where can I look to get a mic that still is able to capture off axis,
> distant seated male singer, , solo figerpicked guitar , sometime backed up
> with a bass and harmonica
>
> is the 441 a legit option, I have a very old(but perfect 421(not ver 2) that
> is close but still to weird off axis

The 441 is a legit option, depedning on the performer's mic tehcinique.
I use a apir fo those for Shiadri and me until one of them failed after
a mic stand got knocked over. (Hurt me, because the mic had delivered
the goods since 1974.)

I recently discovered that Sennheiser also made/makes the 541, which is
appaerently a 441 sans the switches.

The 431, of which I am using a borrowed unit, is much better for live
vox than the 421. Scott Dorsey might be able to explain why <g>

> I am not thrilled with the Neumann 105 , maybe a 103? or a 414?
>
> open to suggestions

Have you tried the Shure KSM9? Chet Himes loaned me a pair of those for
a few shows and we found them to be excellent. One neat thing is that
they are switchable between carioid and hper card. We've been using
hyper.

In the next few days I'll have a chance to track those during practices.
I am interested in how they sound when hooked to a good preamp, because
for the next trio project I want us to have better visual contact, and
getting the U67 and U87 out of our faces could really help.

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

[hank alrich]

RD Jones > wrote:

> On Dec 13, 10:54 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> > The 441 will pop too easily with those people. You might consider the 431,
> > which is harder to pop. You should have some 431s around anyway.
>
> Ditto the recommendation of the MD431.

Late to this party I second or third that emotion. I've been singing
into one of those a lot this year. Works quite well.

I generally don't have any trouble with popping and 441's, though I
popped an SM57 earlier tonight. <g>

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

[hank alrich]

PStamler > wrote:

> I too would recommend trying the E-V RE16. It has the advantage of
> being Variable-D, meaning the tonal quality doesn't change appreciably
> when the mouth-to-mic distance changes.
>
> Another worth checking out (though not Variable-D) is the Shure KSM9,
> set to cardioid pattern.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

I have been impressed with those. We have done a fews shows with [em,
and they have performed really well.

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

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger > wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>
> > Peter Larsen > wrote:
> >> Richard Webb wrote:
> >>
> >>> First, multiple suggestions for the Ev re16. I can
> >>> vouch for those.
> >>
> >>> IF just for vocals, I'd try the old school 421 or even
> >>> the re-20 see how comfortable he is with either of
> >>> those.
> >>> Try the 16 first though since his technique isn't real
> >>> great.
> >>
> >> What reasons are there not to go the headset route?
> >
> > He's a popper.
>
> Interesting. We have a goodly collection of Countryman E6 headset mics, and
> never ever have a problem with popping.
>
> Reasons:
>
> 1. Omni capsules.
>
> 2. The correct positioning of the microphone (according to Countryman) is
> well outside the path of any high velocity air.
>
> Another post (from George) gives what seems to be a more relevant reason not
> to go the headset route:
>
> "It is hard to"work" a headset for dramatic effect" Actually, more like
> impossible.
>
> As far as sound quality goes, headset mics and hand held mics have a strong
> tendency to simply sound different. Some voices benefit, some lose.

The ability to "work the mic" can be important for those whose intended
delivery can cover a lot of different dynamic levels. ( And yeah, I've
been there, too, when the idiot singing is wrecking all of it by
invoking an ignorant mic technique. <g>)

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

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

I did not care for the sterility of the 431, had a slew of them I sold off
two years ago
sturday is mic testing
the line up right now is
the shure beta line up 57,58 and 87
sennheiser vintage 421 with oem ball windscreen
senny 835
audix 211(think sorta like a sm7)
A-T 5400
m88
and a interesting mic that got lots of high praise and suggestions
the
Heil Pr35

I am looking carefully at the Heil as I tried the pr22 a week ago and it did
not impress me at all, being very bright and harsh, so I am not sure where
the glowing praise of the 35 is coming from but I got one to try out

the next round of testing scheduled for just after the Yule will have the
Beyer 930
Senny 965
neumann 102
and re-16

George

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>George's Pro Sound Co. > wrote:
>I recently discovered that Sennheiser also made/makes the 541, which is
>appaerently a 441 sans the switches.

I think that's long-discontinued, but nobody knows what it is so it sells
for cheap. Likewise there is a 531 that was in the Fireball line that is
really a 431.

>The 431, of which I am using a borrowed unit, is much better for live
>vox than the 421. Scott Dorsey might be able to explain why <g>

It's because your voice is better on the 431 than the 421. The 431 _does_
have better gain before feedback because the response off-axis is better,
whereas the 421 gets nasal when you move off to the side. But sometimes
the 421 is the right mike for a vocal and sometimes it's not.

>Have you tried the Shure KSM9? Chet Himes loaned me a pair of those for
>a few shows and we found them to be excellent. One neat thing is that
>they are switchable between carioid and hper card. We've been using
>hyper.

I asked for the things to review but they sent them to Paul Stamler instead
and he loves them.

>In the next few days I'll have a chance to track those during practices.
>I am interested in how they sound when hooked to a good preamp, because
>for the next trio project I want us to have better visual contact, and
>getting the U67 and U87 out of our faces could really help.

I am still really a big fan of the KMS105 when you want something that sounds
like a U87 on-axis but has reduced leakage. But to be honest, most of the
time I want something smoother on top than that, and the 441 is smooth.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
hank alrich > wrote:
>RD Jones > wrote:
>
>> On Dec 13, 10:54 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>> > The 441 will pop too easily with those people. You might consider the 431,
>> > which is harder to pop. You should have some 431s around anyway.
>>
>> Ditto the recommendation of the MD431.
>
>Late to this party I second or third that emotion. I've been singing
>into one of those a lot this year. Works quite well.
>
>I generally don't have any trouble with popping and 441's, though I
>popped an SM57 earlier tonight. <g>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ul7X5js1vE

441 on vocal, 635A on drums. Looks like 635As on the guitar amps and horns
too. Clearly a case of whatever the TV station had in the closet but pretty
remarkable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8lUnI35Sd8

Grover gets a 441 also.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

Here is the artist I am working with
http://blog.syracuse.com/entertainment/2010/12/heres_video_for_dusty_pascals.html

[Scott Dorsey]

George's Pro Sound Co. > wrote:
>I did not care for the sterility of the 431, had a slew of them I sold off
>two years ago

I like that sterility. If you want to sell any more off, let me know.

>sturday is mic testing
>the line up right now is
>the shure beta line up 57,58 and 87
>sennheiser vintage 421 with oem ball windscreen
>senny 835

If you're doing the e835, try one of the older e855s as well. I found the
e835 to have a really sloppy pattern and poor GBF... the e855 is a whole lot
better, didn't sell for much more, and is now discontinued.

Note that both the e835 and e855 are widely counterfeited so a lot of the
ones for sale on Ebay aren't real.

>audix 211(think sorta like a sm7)

If you like the 211, try the OM-6 as well.

>and a interesting mic that got lots of high praise and suggestions
>the
>Heil Pr35
>
>I am looking carefully at the Heil as I tried the pr22 a week ago and it did
>not impress me at all, being very bright and harsh, so I am not sure where
>the glowing praise of the 35 is coming from but I got one to try out

I'm not sure either, I really didn't like either one.. they both have
presence peaks and something that makes them sound way too "electronic"
to me.
--scott


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

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> George's Pro Sound Co. > wrote:
>>I did not care for the sterility of the 431, had a slew of them I sold off
>>two years ago
>
> I like that sterility. If you want to sell any more off, let me know.
>
>>sturday is mic testing
>>the line up right now is
>>the shure beta line up 57,58 and 87
>>sennheiser vintage 421 with oem ball windscreen
>>senny 835

I would not be shocked if the beta 57 works well once properly pop filtered
>
> If you're doing the e835, try one of the older e855s as well. I found the
> e835 to have a really sloppy pattern and poor GBF... the e855 is a whole
> lot
> better, didn't sell for much more, and is now discontinued.
>
> Note that both the e835 and e855 are widely counterfeited so a lot of the
> ones for sale on Ebay aren't real.

I don't expect much from the 835 , it is only in the test because I got um.
I am not a fan of the 835, but ya never know until you try

mine are on my senny g100 wireless units, I am sure they are real
>
>>audix 211(think sorta like a sm7)
>
> If you like the 211, try the OM-6 as well.

??? the 211(discontinued) is a large dia end address condensor mic the om 6
is a dynamic, I expect they would be night and day different
>
>>and a interesting mic that got lots of high praise and suggestions
>>the
>>Heil Pr35
>>
>>I am looking carefully at the Heil as I tried the pr22 a week ago and it
>>did
>>not impress me at all, being very bright and harsh, so I am not sure where
>>the glowing praise of the 35 is coming from but I got one to try out
>
> I'm not sure either, I really didn't like either one.. they both have
> presence peaks and something that makes them sound way too "electronic"
> to me.
> --scott

I guess it was old guys with lots of HF loss praising it
but several recommendations and on line it is described in the most
flattering of ways
I am keeping it "pristene" as I strongly feel it is going back
I really found NOTHINg to like about the 22

[Scott Dorsey]

George's Pro Sound Co. > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>>
>> If you like the 211, try the OM-6 as well.
>
>??? the 211(discontinued) is a large dia end address condensor mic the om 6
>is a dynamic, I expect they would be night and day different

They are, and in fact they are made by totally different people. But I'm
not saying anything more until you try them.

Oh... AKG D880 also... I don't know who recommended it to me, but it was on
this newsgroup and it's a real sleeper in the bargain basement range.
--scott

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

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> George's Pro Sound Co. > wrote:
>>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> If you like the 211, try the OM-6 as well.
>>
>>??? the 211(discontinued) is a large dia end address condensor mic the om
>>6
>>is a dynamic, I expect they would be night and day different
>
> They are, and in fact they are made by totally different people. But I'm
> not saying anything more until you try them.
>
> Oh... AKG D880 also... I don't know who recommended it to me, but it was
> on
> this newsgroup and it's a real sleeper in the bargain basement range.
> --scott
>
LOL, probably me
it was a EXCELLENT vocal mic for people used to sm58 and they were around 50
bucks
I discovered them back when I tried the (then) new akg sr40 wireless
systems, must be 12-14 years ago now
George

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> hank alrich > wrote:
> >George's Pro Sound Co. > wrote:
> >I recently discovered that Sennheiser also made/makes the 541, which is
> >appaerently a 441 sans the switches.
>
> I think that's long-discontinued, but nobody knows what it is so it sells
> for cheap. Likewise there is a 531 that was in the Fireball line that is
> really a 431.
>
> >The 431, of which I am using a borrowed unit, is much better for live
> >vox than the 421. Scott Dorsey might be able to explain why <g>
>
> It's because your voice is better on the 431 than the 421. The 431 _does_
> have better gain before feedback because the response off-axis is better,
> whereas the 421 gets nasal when you move off to the side. But sometimes
> the 421 is the right mike for a vocal and sometimes it's not.

It could be the vocal > mic matchup, but I've found myself preferring
the 431 over the 421 (old model) when listening to several other
singers, too. That off-axis thing might be it, and only enter the
picture when the singer moves a bit out of pattern.

> >Have you tried the Shure KSM9? Chet Himes loaned me a pair of those for
> >a few shows and we found them to be excellent. One neat thing is that
> >they are switchable between carioid and hper card. We've been using
> >hyper.
>
> I asked for the things to review but they sent them to Paul Stamler instead
> and he loves them.

Try 'em; I think they're pretty danged good.

> >In the next few days I'll have a chance to track those during practices.
> >I am interested in how they sound when hooked to a good preamp, because
> >for the next trio project I want us to have better visual contact, and
> >getting the U67 and U87 out of our faces could really help.
>
> I am still really a big fan of the KMS105 when you want something that sounds
> like a U87 on-axis but has reduced leakage. But to be honest, most of the
> time I want something smoother on top than that, and the 441 is smooth.

The 441 is _very_ smooth, and I really liked using them but for the
difficulty of graceful mounting. Hade one of mine not died I'd still be
using them.

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

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>
>The 441 is _very_ smooth, and I really liked using them but for the
>difficulty of graceful mounting. Hade one of mine not died I'd still be
>using them.

Send it back to Sennheiser, they are not expensive to repair.

While you're at it, ask them for the rubber shock mount. It is MUCH
better than the plastic clip.
--scott


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

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/16/2010 9:16 AM, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
> Here is the artist I am working with

He should be playing in venues where he doesn't need a sound
system. ;)

If he moves his head around like that when he's performing,
you won't be able to get any mic far enough away from him to
get a decently balanced vocal without having a feedback
problem. Good luck.

--
"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

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:16:40 -0500, "George's Pro Sound Co."
> wrote:

>Here is the artist I am working with
>http://blog.syracuse.com/entertainment/2010/12/heres_video_for_dusty_pascals.html
>

I clicked on your link and thought, bloody hell, this bloke looks like
those paedophiles you see on the news. Then he announced "I'm a
Catholic" and I thought OK, condemned out of your own mouth mate.

Drop him. He can't play and he can't sing.

d

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:16:40 -0500, "George's Pro Sound Co."
> > wrote:
>
>>Here is the artist I am working with
>>http://blog.syracuse.com/entertainment/2010/12/heres_video_for_dusty_pascals.html
>>
>
> I clicked on your link and thought, bloody hell, this bloke looks like
> those paedophiles you see on the news. Then he announced "I'm a
> Catholic" and I thought OK, condemned out of your own mouth mate.
>
> Drop him. He can't play and he can't sing.
>
> d

while I disagree he does have two really good strong points, he hires me and
he pays(well)

[Scott Dorsey]

George's Pro Sound Co. > wrote:
>>
>> Drop him. He can't play and he can't sing.
>
>while I disagree he does have two really good strong points, he hires me and
>he pays(well)

That trumps everything, I have to agree.

He does actually look like a good candidate for a headset mike. Along with
the usual Isomax II you might want to actually look at the Shure SM-12. I
know.... I know.... it's not exactly the latest in headset technology and
it's not the most comfortable thing. But it's relatively hard to pop.
--scott

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> George's Pro Sound Co. > wrote:
>>>
>>> Drop him. He can't play and he can't sing.
>>
>> while I disagree he does have two really good strong
>> points, he hires me and he pays(well)
>
> That trumps everything, I have to agree.
>
> He does actually look like a good candidate for a headset
> mike. Along with the usual Isomax II you might want to
> actually look at the Shure SM-12. I know.... I know....
> it's not exactly the latest in headset technology and
> it's not the most comfortable thing. But it's relatively
> hard to pop. --scott

Hard to pop is *not* a unique property of headset mics any more.

Avoiding popping is no reason to waste time with a working antique like the
SM12.

I can't think of a performer who would want to be seen in public with a ugly
thing like that SM12, which looks like a refugee from the 1960s. Even the
ones who are trying to make some kind of a techo statement. The obvious
market for the SM12 is people who work behind the cameras, not in front of
them. Its one sterling property seems to be: very, very cheap.
e

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>Hard to pop is *not* a unique property of headset mics any more.

Hard to pop is not a property of _any_ headset mike made. Most of the
time it's not a problem, but when you have a person who pops, you have
a person who pops.

>Avoiding popping is no reason to waste time with a working antique like the
>SM12.

Don't knock it until you've tried it. It's not the most natural thing in
the world but for the people it's great for, it's great.

>I can't think of a performer who would want to be seen in public with a ugly
>thing like that SM12, which looks like a refugee from the 1960s. Even the
>ones who are trying to make some kind of a techo statement. The obvious
>market for the SM12 is people who work behind the cameras, not in front of
>them. Its one sterling property seems to be: very, very cheap.

It is what it is. It's certainly not fashionable, as I pointed out.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message


> Arny Krueger > wrote:

>> Hard to pop is *not* a unique property of headset mics
>> any more.

> Hard to pop is not a property of _any_ headset mike made.

You're simply wrong about that, Scott. Hard to pop is a strong
characteristic of all of the headset mics that I have in play today.

> Most of the time it's not a problem, but when you have a
> person who pops, you have a person who pops.

I serve lots of people who could make a popping problem because they are so
poorly trained as speakers and singers. Not trained at all.

I solve the popping problem with hardware because hardware is all that I
have any control over.

I do it with hand held mics and I do it with headset mics. I'm far from the
sharpest knife in the drawer. It's just a matter of applying established
contemporary technology.

The SM12 is *not* contemporary technology, its a blast from the part of the
past that needs to be laid aside. The only way it could be more
technologically backward would be if it used a carbon capsule.

>> Avoiding popping is no reason to waste time with a
>> working antique like the SM12.

> Don't knock it until you've tried it. It's not the most
> natural thing in the world but for the people it's great
> for, it's great.

It can't be possibly great for anybody who works in front of the public.
Simply looking at it would scare most civilians out of their gourds. Putting
it on must be something like sticking your head into a lightweight bear
trap. The only thing it lacks is sharp pointed teeth.

>> I can't think of a performer who would want to be seen
>> in public with a ugly thing like that SM12, which looks
>> like a refugee from the 1960s. Even the ones who are
>> trying to make some kind of a techo statement. The
>> obvious market for the SM12 is people who work behind
>> the cameras, not in front of them. Its one sterling
>> property seems to be: very, very cheap.

> It is what it is.

That it is. The SM12 should be religated to the scrap heap now that E6
clones cost even less than it does.

> It's certainly not fashionable, as I pointed out. --scott

Saying that the SM12 is not fashionable is merely damning it with faint
praise. What the SM12 deserves is a quick trip to one of those round storage
facilities that are lined with a plastic bag and emptied once a day.

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:29:47 -0500, Don Pearce wrote
(in article >):

>
http://blog.syracuse.com/entertainment/2010/12/heres_video_for_dusty_pascals.h

> tml

he's blind?

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

> Here is the artist I am working with
> http://blog.syracuse.com/entertainment/2010/12/heres_video_for_dusty_pascals.html

I stand by my suggestion of a headset - omni ought to do - and will add a
"bolt on" guitar mic. Take a look/hear at the dpa stuff. For a suggestion
that you may convey or not at your own discretion: his gig would improve by
the addition of a brazil-style percussionist, not a noisy one, one with a
lot of small sonic gizmos.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

>
>>and a interesting mic that got lots of high praise and suggestions
>>the
>>Heil Pr35
>>
>>I am looking carefully at the Heil as I tried the pr22 a week ago and it
>>did
>>not impress me at all, being very bright and harsh, so I am not sure where
>>the glowing praise of the 35 is coming from but I got one to try out
>
> I'm not sure either, I really didn't like either one.. they both have
> presence peaks and something that makes them sound way too "electronic"
> to me.
> --scott
>
Well the CLEAR winner ended up the Heil pr35!!!
exception tonal quality off axis
it popped a bit more than I wanted but mUCH less than other mics
close second was the Audio Technica ae5400 , the 5400 was richer on axis but
not so tonaly similar when used off axis, also the GBF was way down from the
Heil
the pr35 did have some crispness in the 6-8K range that was easily dealt
with
over all I was VERY impressed with the Heil pr35 and highly recommend it
over any othet 200$ vocal mic
next round will be in a week or so as I recieve my samples of the 965 the
930 and the 102
george

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

> Well the CLEAR winner ended up the Heil pr35!!!

Very interesting, thanks!

> george

Kind regards

Peter Larsen