Mic wind-shield, not to be sneezed at.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

I've had a lot of problems in the past with 'folky' performers getting
far too close to the mic. One solution which worked quite well was to
put two mics on the stand, one behind the other - then only use the more
distant one.

Recently, during experiments with furry wind shields for an outdoor
lapel mic, it dawned on me that, if a simlar long-furred wind shield
were used on stage mics, it would force the performers to keep their
distance. They would get the fur in their mouths and up their noses if
they didn't. It could be a lot more educational to them than my
ineffective nagging to keep their distance.

I'm doing P.A. at a folk festival in a couple of weeks time, I'll let
you know how I get on.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Scott Dorsey]

Adrian Tuddenham > wrote:
>I've had a lot of problems in the past with 'folky' performers getting
>far too close to the mic. One solution which worked quite well was to
>put two mics on the stand, one behind the other - then only use the more
>distant one.

This is often the case when people can't hear themselves. Bringing their
monitor levels up to "insanely high" may make them back off the mike properly.

>Recently, during experiments with furry wind shields for an outdoor
>lapel mic, it dawned on me that, if a simlar long-furred wind shield
>were used on stage mics, it would force the performers to keep their
>distance. They would get the fur in their mouths and up their noses if
>they didn't. It could be a lot more educational to them than my
>ineffective nagging to keep their distance.

1. Big foam ball around the mike (I like the ones from Olsen).

2. Pointy pencil taped to the side of the mike to the performer can't
get closer than about four inches.

3. Fake mike. SM58 for them to sing into, then a 441 about a foot back that
actually goes into the mix. You may have to put the SM58 into their
monitors if they like to hear themselves popping a lot.

>I'm doing P.A. at a folk festival in a couple of weeks time, I'll let
>you know how I get on.

There is a tremendous variation there.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/27/2015 9:43 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> I've had a lot of problems in the past with 'folky' performers getting
> far too close to the mic. One solution which worked quite well was to
> put two mics on the stand, one behind the other - then only use the more
> distant one.

Don't single out us folky performers. Rock singers always eat mics, no
matter what the last the last person using that mic was eating. ;) The
trouble with the "dummy" mic is that you need to at least put a cable on
the mic end. And there's always someone who will tap on it, or get up
really close and say softly into it "Is this mic on?" And then you have
to be able to turn it on to make them feel at ease even if you turn it
off again once they start to sing. And when it comes to a festival with
rapid changeovers, often between very different setups, having extra
mics on the stage looks cluttered and makes changes more difficult,
particularly if you're working the usual volunteer stage crew.

> Recently, during experiments with furry wind shields for an outdoor
> lapel mic, it dawned on me that, if a simlar long-furred wind shield
> were used on stage mics, it would force the performers to keep their
> distance. They would get the fur in their mouths and up their noses if
> they didn't. It could be a lot more educational to them than my
> ineffective nagging to keep their distance.

I'm all for educating performers when necessary, but that might just be
too weird for them. But I do like the idea of taping a sharply pointed
pencil alongside the mic, but I'd hate to have someone accidentally get
too close and get poked in an eye.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Frank Stearns]

(Adrian Tuddenham) writes:

>I've had a lot of problems in the past with 'folky' performers getting
>far too close to the mic. One solution which worked quite well was to
>put two mics on the stand, one behind the other - then only use the more
>distant one.

>Recently, during experiments with furry wind shields for an outdoor
>lapel mic, it dawned on me that, if a simlar long-furred wind shield
>were used on stage mics, it would force the performers to keep their
>distance. They would get the fur in their mouths and up their noses if
>they didn't. It could be a lot more educational to them than my
>ineffective nagging to keep their distance.

>I'm doing P.A. at a folk festival in a couple of weeks time, I'll let
>you know how I get on.

Interesting...

Which microphones, and what is the optimal distance you'd like to see?

For most of my live recording work, I prefer vocalists as close as possible to give
me as much signal as possible (and therefore better isolation). This helps me deal
with a lot of sonic "junk" on stage (monitors, amps, et al) -- things far better
controlled in a studio setting.

But this applies to doing PA as well, as the cleaner the signals generally the
cleaner the PA. You also are more likely to stay farther away from that awful comb
filtering when the monitors are teetering on feedback but not quite there. (If
you're fortunate, perhaps you won't be dealing with monitors.)

With the right compression I can transparently "undo" the exaggerated dynamics from
being "too close"; and pops that get through are typically dealt with effectively
via steep highpass (sometimes automated) or a quick bit of manipulation on the
waveform. I do start with foam screens and the mic somewhat off axis (perhaps 45
degrees) to help with that as well. (Obviously, if you're doing PA only, you won't
be able to "fix a waveform.")

Anyway, YMMV; good luck with it.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Frank Stearns > wrote:

> (Adrian Tuddenham) writes:
>
> >I've had a lot of problems in the past with 'folky' performers getting
> >far too close to the mic.
[...]

> Which microphones, and what is the optimal distance you'd like to see?

The bodies come from Maplins cheapest electret mics, but with the
capsules replaced by Sony WM 55A103 's and a few other modifications
(anti-thump switching, some good quality capacitors and removal of the
dreadful impedance-matching transformers).

They seem to give a satisfactory balance between 9" and 12" . They can
be overloaded by a really loud male voice right against the foam wind
shield. The fur windshields should help a lot with that, because the
base canvas of the fur is a pretty dense weave.

They are cheap and cheerful and a bit fragile, but give a reasonable
sound if they are used properly. This is battery-powered P.A. in a
plastic tent, so there is no pretence of concert sound quality.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>Don't single out us folky performers. Rock singers always eat mics, no
>matter what the last the last person using that mic was eating. ;)

The problem with rock singers is they never can hear themselves properly
under stage conditions, and this is what causes mike eating most often.

>The
>trouble with the "dummy" mic is that you need to at least put a cable on
>the mic end. And there's always someone who will tap on it, or get up
>really close and say softly into it "Is this mic on?" And then you have
>to be able to turn it on to make them feel at ease even if you turn it
>off again once they start to sing. And when it comes to a festival with
>rapid changeovers, often between very different setups, having extra
>mics on the stage looks cluttered and makes changes more difficult,
>particularly if you're working the usual volunteer stage crew.

This is true. The dummy mike might be in the monitors and it might be
possible to put it into the mains as a backup.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Bill[_20_]]

In message .invalid>,
Adrian Tuddenham > writes
>Recently, during experiments with furry wind shields for an outdoor
>lapel mic, it dawned on me that, if a simlar long-furred wind shield
>were used on stage mics, it would force the performers to keep their
>distance. They would get the fur in their mouths and up their noses if
>they didn't. It could be a lot more educational to them than my
>ineffective nagging to keep their distance.

"Cathedral Sound", a company in Halsall, Lancashire, UK used to
manufacture these furry windshields for a variety of hand held mics. Our
local church had PA from them, and in the '70's they advertised
compressor/liniters quite a bit in "Studio Sound" magazine. I've just
had a bit of fun looking at the ads in some old issues on the
AmericanRadioHistory website. They appear not to have advertised the
windshields.

I seem to remember the windshields were handmade, possibly by the
proprietor's wife, and I remember trying one. I think it worked pretty
well, but it rains a lot here and that may have caused its demise.
--
Bill

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/27/2015 11:51 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> The problem with rock singers is they never can hear themselves properly
> under stage conditions, and this is what causes mike eating most often.

That, and it looks good on TV.

> This is true. The dummy mike might be in the monitors and it might be
> possible to put it into the mains as a backup.

Good trick to turn up the "obvious" mic when the performer is "testing"
and then turn it down, but you have to be quick and observant. However,
monitors with loud-enough-to-hear vocals (from the close mic) will
probably be picked up pretty well by the mic that you want to use for
vocals.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/27/2015 11:38 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> The bodies come from Maplins cheapest electret mics, but with the
> capsules replaced by Sony WM 55A103 's and a few other modifications
> (anti-thump switching, some good quality capacitors and removal of the
> dreadful impedance-matching transformers).
>
> They seem to give a satisfactory balance between 9" and 12" . They can
> be overloaded by a really loud male voice right against the foam wind
> shield.

This seems to be a good illustration of the principle that there's a
wrong microphone for every situation. What you probably need is some
SM58s, and let the singers swallow them if that's what makes them
comfortable.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/27/2015 1:05 PM, Bill wrote:
> "Cathedral Sound", a company in Halsall, Lancashire, UK used to
> manufacture these furry windshields for a variety of hand held mics.

> I seem to remember the windshields were handmade, possibly by the
> proprietor's wife, and I remember trying one. I

At the Rycote booth at, I think, this year's NAB show, the woman who
made all of their furry wind screens was there explaining how they were
put together. It's not simple, which is why they're expensive (at least
the Rycotes are). Maybe Adrian should look into the Roadkill brand. ;)

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

>
> > Which microphones, and what is the optimal distance you'd like to see?
>
> The bodies come from Maplins cheapest electret mics, but with the
> capsules replaced by Sony WM 55A103 's and a few other modifications
>

Panasonic WM 55A103?

Mark

[geoff]

On 28/07/2015 2:21 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:

>
> 1. Big foam ball around the mike (I like the ones from Olsen).
>
> 2. Pointy pencil taped to the side of the mike to the performer can't
> get closer than about four inches.
>
> 3. Fake mike. SM58 for them to sing into, then a 441 about a foot back that
> actually goes into the mix. You may have to put the SM58 into their
> monitors if they like to hear themselves popping a lot.

Big sticky bogey on the grille ?

geoff

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

> wrote:

> >
> > > Which microphones, and what is the optimal distance you'd like to see?
> >
> > The bodies come from Maplins cheapest electret mics, but with the
> > capsules replaced by Sony WM 55A103 's and a few other modifications
> >
>
> Panasonic WM 55A103?
>
> Mark

Sorry, my mistake; they were Panasonic.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 7/27/2015 1:05 PM, Bill wrote:
> > "Cathedral Sound", a company in Halsall, Lancashire, UK used to
> > manufacture these furry windshields for a variety of hand held mics.
>
> > I seem to remember the windshields were handmade, possibly by the
> > proprietor's wife, and I remember trying one. I
>
> At the Rycote booth at, I think, this year's NAB show, the woman who
> made all of their furry wind screens was there explaining how they were
> put together. It's not simple, which is why they're expensive (at least
> the Rycotes are). Maybe Adrian should look into the Roadkill brand. ;)

Last year I bought some fur to make a wind shield for a Tascam DR-05
(one that covered the whole machine, to minimise both wind and handling
noise). The local fabric shop sold me a huge end-of-run offcut for next
to nothing, so I put the spare material aside for some future
dressmaking project.

Recently a friend, whose hobbies include making videos, was having
problems with her lapel mic under windy conditions, so I made several
experimental fur covers from my leftovers, to go over the existing foam
wind shield. Once I had got the hang of making them, it was easy to
adapt the design to other mics.

The Rycote designs are more complex than mine, but that is because they
have to work under more arduous conditions and some of them have to
allow enough space for mic suspension components. The principle is the
same in every case: an outer fur layer is firmly supported to prevent
movement, then an air gap between the fur and the mic body to allow
low-speed air circulation with no pressure on the diaphragm. With small
mics, a foam wind shield under the fur gives sufficiant support and,
being porous, allows air circulation.

The fur must be a type with varied filament length; a fixed-length pile,
such as velvet, would not work so well. The idea is to produce a
gradual change in the air stream velocity as it gets closer to the solid
microphone body, sharp changes in the velocity gradient will shed eddies
and give rise to rumble.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Edi Zubovic]

On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 21:17:46 +0100,
(Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

>Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/2015 1:05 PM, Bill wrote:
>> > "Cathedral Sound", a company in Halsall, Lancashire, UK used to
>> > manufacture these furry windshields for a variety of hand held mics.
>>
>> > I seem to remember the windshields were handmade, possibly by the
>> > proprietor's wife, and I remember trying one. I
>>
>> At the Rycote booth at, I think, this year's NAB show, the woman who
>> made all of their furry wind screens was there explaining how they were
>> put together. It's not simple, which is why they're expensive (at least
>> the Rycotes are). Maybe Adrian should look into the Roadkill brand. ;)
>
>Last year I bought some fur to make a wind shield for a Tascam DR-05
>(one that covered the whole machine, to minimise both wind and handling
>noise). The local fabric shop sold me a huge end-of-run offcut for next
>to nothing, so I put the spare material aside for some future
>dressmaking project.
>
>Recently a friend, whose hobbies include making videos, was having
>problems with her lapel mic under windy conditions, so I made several
>experimental fur covers from my leftovers, to go over the existing foam
>wind shield. Once I had got the hang of making them, it was easy to
>adapt the design to other mics.
>
>The Rycote designs are more complex than mine, but that is because they
>have to work under more arduous conditions and some of them have to
>allow enough space for mic suspension components. The principle is the
>same in every case: an outer fur layer is firmly supported to prevent
>movement, then an air gap between the fur and the mic body to allow
>low-speed air circulation with no pressure on the diaphragm. With small
>mics, a foam wind shield under the fur gives sufficiant support and,
>being porous, allows air circulation.
>
>The fur must be a type with varied filament length; a fixed-length pile,
>such as velvet, would not work so well. The idea is to produce a
>gradual change in the air stream velocity as it gets closer to the solid
>microphone body, sharp changes in the velocity gradient will shed eddies
>and give rise to rumble.


--I remember when I've got a Sony PCM-D1 in 2007, I've soon found that
its original foam windscreen has been way insufficient. The PCM-D-1
has a relatively big microphones, gradient type with fully open
membranes so a smallest wind hit would shake them and make the
affected part of a recording simply lost. Maybe a 250 Hz filter option
has been added to because of that.
Since I considered the original foam windshield has being not more but
a dust cap, I thought Rycote might be ideal. So I purchased a big
Rycote bag for some stereo microphone -- it was not cheap really, as
I remember. I think it was a big Mini Windjammer Special. Then I
gave it together with the Sony windscreen to a tailor to make me a
suitable cap. I've got two of them and after I tried them I knew that
was a real thing. I could make perfectly usable recordings even during
breeze conditions. There were no parts destroyed by a wind hit any
more.

I made some photos of them and send them to my vendor who in turn sent
them to Sony, as he had some friends in so called middle management
there.
Soon Sony made pretty the same model of fur windscreen and others
followed very quickly. Now Rycote makes fur windscreens for all kind
of small recorders.
As to me, one of my "furs" still bears that red-white Rycote logo.

Since PCM-D1 microphones are protected by two curved rails, when the
fur windscreen is fitted onto, a cavity is formed which is very
important for further pressure equalization. So when the wind energy
goes to moving and in fact heating myriads of fur hairs and the
pressure is further equalized in the cavity, the results are complete
and saved recordings.

This fur plus cage system is not new, it has been made for decades
when a interference higly directional microphone must be used
outdoors. It's a Zeppelin with fur, it looks cute too.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

[John Williamson]

On 28/07/2015 20:54, Edi Zubovic wrote:

>
> This fur plus cage system is not new, it has been made for decades
> when a interference higly directional microphone must be used
> outdoors. It's a Zeppelin with fur, it looks cute too.
>
AKA "Rat on a stick" on film sets. :-)



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 9:43:02 AM UTC-4, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> I've had a lot of problems in the past with 'folky' performers getting
> far too close to the mic. One solution which worked quite well was to
> put two mics on the stand, one behind the other - then only use the more
> distant one.
>
> Recently, during experiments with furry wind shields for an outdoor
> lapel mic, it dawned on me that, if a simlar long-furred wind shield
> were used on stage mics, it would force the performers to keep their
> distance. They would get the fur in their mouths and up their noses if
> they didn't. It could be a lot more educational to them than my
> ineffective nagging to keep their distance.
>
> I'm doing P.A. at a folk festival in a couple of weeks time, I'll let
> you know how I get on.
>
> --
> ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
> (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
> www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Neat site.

With the horrendous "singing" of Pop Rock music, I think they should create a vocal-shield, that just allow wind noise to be recorded. Really!

Jack

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Edi Zubovic <edi.zubovic[rem > wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 21:17:46 +0100,
> (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

[...]
> >...The principle is the
> >same in every case: an outer fur layer is firmly supported to prevent
> >movement, then an air gap between the fur and the mic body to allow
> >low-speed air circulation with no pressure on the diaphragm. With small
> >mics, a foam wind shield under the fur gives sufficiant support and,
> >being porous, allows air circulation.
> >
> >The fur must be a type with varied filament length; a fixed-length pile,
> >such as velvet, would not work so well. The idea is to produce a
> >gradual change in the air stream velocity as it gets closer to the solid
> >microphone body, sharp changes in the velocity gradient will shed eddies
> >and give rise to rumble.
>
>
> --I remember when I've got a Sony PCM-D1 in 2007, I've soon found that
> its original foam windscreen has been way insufficient. The PCM-D-1
> has a relatively big microphones, gradient type with fully open
> membranes so a smallest wind hit would shake them and make the
> affected part of a recording simply lost. Maybe a 250 Hz filter option
> has been added to because of that.
> Since I considered the original foam windshield has being not more but
> a dust cap, I thought Rycote might be ideal. So I purchased a big
> Rycote bag for some stereo microphone -- it was not cheap really, as
> I remember. I think it was a big Mini Windjammer Special. Then I
> gave it together with the Sony windscreen to a tailor to make me a
> suitable cap. I've got two of them and after I tried them I knew that
> was a real thing. I could make perfectly usable recordings even during
> breeze conditions. There were no parts destroyed by a wind hit any
> more.

Another of my other experimental fur-over-foam wind shields was tried
out on a Sony ECM-MS 907 at an outdoor concert by Easingwold Town Band a
couple of weeks ago. There was a stiff breeze blowing, but only a
slight turbulence noise became audible at one point in a quiet solo and
there were no sound-destroying blasts on the diaphragms at all. Far
more noticeable was the rustling of leaves in a large tree some distance
from the bandstand.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Adrian Tuddenham > wrote:

> I've had a lot of problems in the past with 'folky' performers getting
> far too close to the mic. One solution which worked quite well was to
> put two mics on the stand, one behind the other - then only use the more
> distant one.
>
> Recently, during experiments with furry wind shields for an outdoor
> lapel mic, it dawned on me that, if a simlar long-furred wind shield
> were used on stage mics, it would force the performers to keep their
> distance. They would get the fur in their mouths and up their noses if
> they didn't. It could be a lot more educational to them than my
> ineffective nagging to keep their distance.
>
> I'm doing P.A. at a folk festival in a couple of weeks time, I'll let
> you know how I get on.

I'm pleased to report that the experiment was a success, I only had one
case of 'popping' and that didn't last very long. Several performers
made jokes about the furry microphones, but nobody caught on to why I
was shielding them that way.

I still had to resort to the two-mic technique for one performer who
moved around a lot and didn't keep a constant mouth-to-mic distance.
The differences in distance and direction would have necessitated
'riding the gain' if I had used the nearer mic, but with the distant mic
they had far less effect and I was able to relax and let him get on with
it.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Scott Dorsey]

Adrian Tuddenham > wrote:
>I'm pleased to report that the experiment was a success, I only had one
>case of 'popping' and that didn't last very long. Several performers
>made jokes about the furry microphones, but nobody caught on to why I
>was shielding them that way.

What kind of fur, and did you have foam under it? Was there any audible
HF loss?

I have really, really liked the big foam balls from Olsen although they
sure look ugly and the TV guys complain about them blocking sight lines.

>I still had to resort to the two-mic technique for one performer who
>moved around a lot and didn't keep a constant mouth-to-mic distance.
>The differences in distance and direction would have necessitated
>'riding the gain' if I had used the nearer mic, but with the distant mic
>they had far less effect and I was able to relax and let him get on with
>it.

Yup, there is a lot of that. Also you can give those guys an RE-20.
I actually still keep a box of 664s for festival jobs for guys like that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/22/2015 7:49 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Adrian Tuddenham > wrote:
>> I still had to resort to the two-mic technique for one performer who
>> moved around a lot and didn't keep a constant mouth-to-mic distance.
>
> Yup, there is a lot of that. Also you can give those guys an RE-20.
> I actually still keep a box of 664s for festival jobs for guys like that.

My experience with folky performers with no mic technique is that
they're too quiet for distant miking, even a foot away, if there are
monitors or the house speakers are loud enough. Trade feedback for
inconsistent volume.

Whatever works.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> Adrian Tuddenham > wrote:
> >I'm pleased to report that the experiment was a success, I only had one
> >case of 'popping' and that didn't last very long. Several performers
> >made jokes about the furry microphones, but nobody caught on to why I
> >was shielding them that way.
>
> What kind of fur, and did you have foam under it? Was there any audible
> HF loss?

It was medium-long hair fur, whith a good assortment of fibre lengths to
slow the air currents gradually. The main contribution of the fur was
in forcing the performers to keep their distance by choking or tickling
them when they got too close.

I used fairly small foam windshields underneath, giving about 8mm
spacing between the underside of the fur and the mic body.

I tested for changes in the sound quality when the fur was installed,
but couldn't hear anything of significance. In theory, a cavity betwen
the acoustic impedance discontinuities of the woven fur base and the mic
body should have had the potential to cause a resonance, but as the
cavity was filled with foam damping, there was no resonance that I could
detect. There was no particular tendency towards feedback at one
consistent frequency, which would have been a good indicator that a
resonance was present.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 8/22/2015 7:49 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > Adrian Tuddenham > wrote:
> >> I still had to resort to the two-mic technique for one performer who
> >> moved around a lot and didn't keep a constant mouth-to-mic distance.
> >
> > Yup, there is a lot of that. Also you can give those guys an RE-20.
> > I actually still keep a box of 664s for festival jobs for guys like that.
>
> My experience with folky performers with no mic technique is that
> they're too quiet for distant miking, even a foot away, if there are
> monitors or the house speakers are loud enough. Trade feedback for
> inconsistent volume.
>
> Whatever works.

The particular performer who needed the double-mic technique was used to
performing in clubs, so he was ear-shatteringly loud. I initially
developed the double-mic technique as a way of getting around the
overloading he was causing in the close mic - then I discovered the
other benefits.

I have also had the opposite situation similar to the one which you
described: performers who were scared of the mic and kept creeping
backwards away from it. At first I used to keep moving the mic closer,
but they just backed away further; then I hit on the idea of placing a
back-to-front chair behind them, so they couldn't move any further away.
It worked, although it made them very uncomfortable.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/22/2015 10:27 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> The particular performer who needed the double-mic technique was used to
> performing in clubs, so he was ear-shatteringly loud.

Indeed, that's the kind of singer who can benefit from having the mic
back a foot or so, and if it makes him feel good to see a mic right in
front of his face, that's a good application of psychoacoustics. ;)

> I have also had the opposite situation similar to the one which you
> described: performers who were scared of the mic and kept creeping
> backwards away from it. At first I used to keep moving the mic closer,
> but they just backed away further; then I hit on the idea of placing a
> back-to-front chair behind them, so they couldn't move any further away.
> It worked, although it made them very uncomfortable.

Better than nailing their feet to the floor, or at least kinder. Or you
could suggest that they sit in the chair, A lot of folkies are really
more comfortable with that but engineers and others tell them that puts
their instrument too close to their voice and mumble about separation.
I'd find a position where the voice and instrument are decently balanced
and then put a dummy mic up to make it look like I'm also miking the
instrument.

You can fool most of them most of the time, but not all of them all the
time. If there's a monitor, put enough of the dummy instrument mic in it
so that they can hear when they talk into it and say "is this mic on?"


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Rivers > writes:

>On 8/22/2015 10:27 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>> The particular performer who needed the double-mic technique was used to
>> performing in clubs, so he was ear-shatteringly loud.

>Indeed, that's the kind of singer who can benefit from having the mic
>back a foot or so, and if it makes him feel good to see a mic right in

One thing I thought I'd never do was use as much compression as I do now in the live
gigs I've been mixing lately for the situation described above, and others.

The trick is to make the GR as transparent and natural as possible. Attack,
release, ratio and knee are all carefully tailored to fit the voice. Getting folks
fairly tight on mic can usually help but of course dynamics are then exaggerated,
thus the helpful compression.

A reasonably good dynamics processor in a commerical-grade digital mixer is
typically all you need, though if a second dynamics section is available I'll toss
in a dee-esser. This is used almost more for controlling the final HF energy coming
out of mid-fi compression drivers rather than actual siblance control.

The mixes are nicely tighter, smoother, and voices don't jump out and peel off
audience scalps with excessive peaks, either directly or from system distortion.

YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Trevor]

On 23/08/2015 12:27 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> I have also had the opposite situation similar to the one which you
> described: performers who were scared of the mic and kept creeping
> backwards away from it.

Yep, bothers me far more than being too close for festivals when you
might run into feedback by just increasing mic gain. Turning down the
bass on the mic channel is a lot easier.


> At first I used to keep moving the mic closer,
> but they just backed away further; then I hit on the idea of placing a
> back-to-front chair behind them, so they couldn't move any further away.
> It worked, although it made them very uncomfortable.

I wouldn't even try it, I'm amazed they didn't simply move the chair.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

Adrian Tuddenham > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>
>> Adrian Tuddenham > wrote:
>> >I'm pleased to report that the experiment was a success, I only had one
>> >case of 'popping' and that didn't last very long. Several performers
>> >made jokes about the furry microphones, but nobody caught on to why I
>> >was shielding them that way.
>>
>> What kind of fur, and did you have foam under it? Was there any audible
>> HF loss?
>
>It was medium-long hair fur, whith a good assortment of fibre lengths to
>slow the air currents gradually. The main contribution of the fur was
>in forcing the performers to keep their distance by choking or tickling
>them when they got too close.
>
>I used fairly small foam windshields underneath, giving about 8mm
>spacing between the underside of the fur and the mic body.

WindTech makes furry things that are pretty inexpensive, or at least a
whole hell of a lot cheaper than the Rycotes:
http://www.windtech.tv/Mic-Muff.php

But mostly I have been using the US-1 from them, which is just a big foam
thing, 45mm in diameter:
http://www.windtech.tv/Large_Windscreens.php

I am pretty happy with them at festivals where there is a lot of wind on
stage....

Hmm... I just noticed they make a 441 version now!
--scott


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

[Dave O'Heare[_4_]]

(Adrian Tuddenham) wrote in
valid.invalid:


> I have also had the opposite situation similar to the one which you
> described: performers who were scared of the mic and kept creeping
> backwards away from it.

Sorry to be coming in late to this, but...

One performer I occasionally work with has the annoying habit of poointing
his nose at the microphone, rather than his mouth. For a mic with a tight
pattern (like a 441), this is sub-optimal. I've spoken to him a few times
about it, doesn't make a lasting difference.

I did try the work around of dropping the mic stand a little, every time he
wasn't looking; ended up with him half-crouched, knees bent. I was amused,
but this wasn't very good at all.

I ended up swapping his vocal mic for an SM58. Sigh.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Dave O'Heare > wrote:

> (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote in
> valid.invalid:
>
>
> > I have also had the opposite situation similar to the one which you
> > described: performers who were scared of the mic and kept creeping
> > backwards away from it.
>
> Sorry to be coming in late to this, but...
>
> One performer I occasionally work with has the annoying habit of poointing
> his nose at the microphone, rather than his mouth. For a mic with a tight
> pattern (like a 441), this is sub-optimal. I've spoken to him a few times
> about it, doesn't make a lasting difference.
>
> I did try the work around of dropping the mic stand a little, every time he
> wasn't looking; ended up with him half-crouched, knees bent. I was amused,
> but this wasn't very good at all.
>
> I ended up swapping his vocal mic for an SM58. Sigh.

Sounds as though the two-mic trick, one above the other, might work.
The top one can be any old rubbish, even a dead mic from the scrap box;
he can stick that up his nose as much as he likes and you just use the
output from the 441 below it.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk