i'm having some trouble amplifying a rather quiet voice on a loud
stage. it's a song wherein guitars rage hard and one guy kinda talks
neurotic. now i'd like to have this talking in the mix so that it's
"almost not understandable, but hearable", problem is that i have to
pull up the gain so hard so that i absorb the whole stagesound into
that one mic (mostly a 58) with feedback as a consequence? what could
help?

thanxx

"Bert Aerts" wrote in message om...
i'm having some trouble amplifying a rather quiet voice on a loud
stage. it's a song wherein guitars rage hard and one guy kinda talks
neurotic. now i'd like to have this talking in the mix so that it's
"almost not understandable, but hearable", problem is that i have to
pull up the gain so hard so that i absorb the whole stagesound into
that one mic (mostly a 58) with feedback as a consequence? what could
help?

thanxx


There's really only one answer unless you buy a monstrous PA and
dedicate it to vocals... turn everyone else down.

I hate it when I could get a good recording of the whole band through
just the singer's mic. :-(

DM

Bert Aerts wrote:
i'm having some trouble amplifying a rather quiet voice on a loud
stage. it's a song wherein guitars rage hard and one guy kinda talks
neurotic. now i'd like to have this talking in the mix so that it's
"almost not understandable, but hearable", problem is that i have to
pull up the gain so hard so that i absorb the whole stagesound into
that one mic (mostly a 58) with feedback as a consequence? what could
help?

1. A tighter mike

2. Mike placement so it's away from the monitors and getting as little feed
as possible from the mains.

The SM-58 has a very wide pattern and not much top end at all, which makes
it a real nightmare in this kind of situation. An SM-57 might be a little
better if you can't find anything in the kit that has a seriously tight
pattern.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 4/23/05 6:43 AM, in article
, "Bert Aerts"
wrote:

i'm having some trouble amplifying a rather quiet voice on a loud
stage. it's a song wherein guitars rage hard and one guy kinda talks
neurotic. now i'd like to have this talking in the mix so that it's
"almost not understandable, but hearable", problem is that i have to
pull up the gain so hard so that i absorb the whole stagesound into
that one mic (mostly a 58) with feedback as a consequence? what could
help?

thanxx

Everyboy
Else
Has
To Turn Down


Actually if you can still get the old CROWN handheld differoid mic you'll
nail this.
The singer must learn to use NO mic technique since as soon as you back off
1/2" you VANISH. Once watched a Clair Brothers setup crew play with one of
these with a guy shoving his face right into one of their big wedges set on
STUN blowing his hair back when he said "CHECK"... but NO feedback!

On 4/23/05 7:07 AM, in article T%pae.481$Nc.117@trnddc08, "David Morgan
(MAMS)" wrote:


"Bert Aerts" wrote in message
om...
i'm having some trouble amplifying a rather quiet voice on a loud
stage. it's a song wherein guitars rage hard and one guy kinda talks
neurotic. now i'd like to have this talking in the mix so that it's
"almost not understandable, but hearable", problem is that i have to
pull up the gain so hard so that i absorb the whole stagesound into
that one mic (mostly a 58) with feedback as a consequence? what could
help?

thanxx


There's really only one answer unless you buy a monstrous PA and
dedicate it to vocals... turn everyone else down.

I hate it when I could get a good recording of the whole band through
just the singer's mic. :-(

It has on several occasions saved me from putting up OH's on a drum kit...

Bert Aerts wrote:

i'm having some trouble amplifying a rather quiet voice on a loud
stage. it's a song wherein guitars rage hard and one guy kinda talks
neurotic. now i'd like to have this talking in the mix so that it's
"almost not understandable, but hearable", problem is that i have to
pull up the gain so hard so that i absorb the whole stagesound into
that one mic (mostly a 58) with feedback as a consequence? what
could
help?

My associate and I recently did some informal comparisons of several
of the vocal mics we had on hand. I knew that the SM58 was not the
best vocal mic in the world, but I was amazed how badly it came off in
comparison with the other admittedly low-cost mediocre mics we had on
hand.

I'm no doubt any number of decades behind the tip of the technological
spear by reporting that the hypercardiods we tried (Audix OM-3, OM-5,
and OM-6) had very strong advantages in terms of picking up the
vocalist well, giving a natural sound, while avoiding much of the
sound field around him. I was even more surprised that the plain
old-tech relatively cheap condenser cardioid we tried (CAD 95) showed
a lesser, but still strong advantage in the same performance areas.

Just because the SM58 is cheap, readily available and widely accepted,
doesn't mean that its particularly good.

In article writes:

i'm having some trouble amplifying a rather quiet voice on a loud
stage.

Yeah. You and everybody else. g

problem is that i have to
pull up the gain so hard so that i absorb the whole stagesound into
that one mic (mostly a 58) with feedback as a consequence? what could
help?

The thing that would help most is better technique on the part of the
vocalist. Get him to practice doing his mumbles with his lips touching
the mic, then learn about the directivity pattern of the mic and find
a place to stand where the null in the pattern is pointing toward the
loudest sound source. Getting close to the mic will reduce the
feedback problem by allowing you to use less gain. And less gain means
less leakage from the rest of the stage.

It's obviously a drama trick. It's OK if he crouches over and turns
his back to the audience during this passage. However, if he goes back
to singing normally in the same song, you'll really need someone to
ride gain on the mic. A compressor or other "automatic" tool won't
work and will only enhance your feedback.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In ear monitors would be ideal, certainly for keeping the stage volume sane

Rick Hollett
"Bert Aerts" wrote in message
om...
i'm having some trouble amplifying a rather quiet voice on a loud
stage. it's a song wherein guitars rage hard and one guy kinda talks
neurotic. now i'd like to have this talking in the mix so that it's
"almost not understandable, but hearable", problem is that i have to
pull up the gain so hard so that i absorb the whole stagesound into
that one mic (mostly a 58) with feedback as a consequence? what could
help?

thanxx

"SSJVCmag" wrote in message ...
On 4/23/05 7:07 AM, in article T%pae.481$Nc.117@trnddc08, "David Morgan
(MAMS)" wrote:


"Bert Aerts" wrote in message
om...
i'm having some trouble amplifying a rather quiet voice on a loud
stage. it's a song wherein guitars rage hard and one guy kinda talks
neurotic. now i'd like to have this talking in the mix so that it's
"almost not understandable, but hearable", problem is that i have to
pull up the gain so hard so that i absorb the whole stagesound into
that one mic (mostly a 58) with feedback as a consequence? what could
help?

thanxx


There's really only one answer unless you buy a monstrous PA and
dedicate it to vocals... turn everyone else down.

I hate it when I could get a good recording of the whole band through
just the singer's mic. :-(

It has on several occasions saved me from putting up OH's on a drum kit...


Unless it's in the rider of a 'major', I never put up overheads on a stage
smaller than 30w by 20d in a venue that seats less than 500.... any more
than one or two vocals and we've got more 'overheads' than we'll ever
need. (I also pray for non-singing drummers). In many cases that have
the kind of volume we're obviously talking about here, if there are three
vocals across the front, I don't need anything in the PA but kick, toms,
and those vocal mics unless I'm recording. I try to avoid shows like that
these days.

DM

"Army Krueger"

My associate and I recently did some informal comparisons of several
of the vocal mics we had on hand.


** Arrrrrrggghhhh - what next ???

Now we have sighted, non level matched and subjective tests from Arny
!!!!!!!


I knew that the SM58 was not the
best vocal mic in the world,


** So condemned from the beginning.


but I was amazed how badly it came off in
comparison with the other admittedly low-cost mediocre mics we had on
hand.


** But are they lower cost alternatives to the SM58 ???


I'm no doubt any number of decades behind the tip of the technological
spear by reporting that the hypercardiods we tried (Audix OM-3, OM-5,
and OM-6) had very strong advantages in terms of picking up the
vocalist well, giving a natural sound, while avoiding much of the
sound field around him.


** The OM-5 is considerably MORE expensive than the SM 58. Recommended
retail prices in Aussie are $485 and $309 respectively - the SM 58 can
be got for $ 249 from at least one major dealer in Sydney.


Just because the SM58 is cheap, readily available and widely accepted,
doesn't mean that its particularly good.


** Just because some ex US Army maintenance tech, compewter geek and
renowned anti-SM 58 bigot posts unsupported and meaningless assertions
against a famous product he irrationally hates doesn't mean they are any
good either.




............ Phil

Phil Allison wrote:
"Army Krueger"

My associate and I recently did some informal comparisons of
several
of the vocal mics we had on hand.


** Arrrrrrggghhhh - what next ???

Now we have sighted, non level matched and subjective tests from
Arny
!!!!!!!

My defense - I called a spade a spade.

I knew that the SM58 was not the
best vocal mic in the world,

** So condemned from the beginning.

but I was amazed how badly it came off in
comparison with the other admittedly low-cost mediocre mics we had
on
hand.

** But are they lower cost alternatives to the SM58 ???

No, but if you can afford a new SM58, you could probably easily afford
them.

I'm no doubt any number of decades behind the tip of the
technological spear by reporting that the hypercardiods we tried
(Audix OM-3, OM-5, and OM-6) had very strong advantages in terms
of
picking up the vocalist well, giving a natural sound, while
avoiding
much of the sound field around him.

** The OM-5 is considerably MORE expensive than the SM 58.
Recommended retail prices in Aussie are $485 and $309
respectively
- the SM 58 can be got for $ 249 from at least one major dealer in
Sydney.

I admit it. I surfed eBay and paid an average of $80 for my 5 OM5s. A
new SM58 is about $100 in the US, and its hard to find much but new
ones or used ones for close to the best new price. Its not too hard to
pick up a new OM5 for about $130, I think.

Just because the SM58 is cheap, readily available and widely
accepted, doesn't mean that its particularly good.


** Just because some ex US Army maintenance tech, compewter geek
and
renowned anti-SM 58 bigot posts unsupported and meaningless
assertions
against a famous product he irrationally hates doesn't mean they are
any good either.

YMMV

;-)

"Arny Krueger"
Phil Allison wrote:


My associate and I recently did some informal comparisons of
several of the vocal mics we had on hand.


** Arrrrrrggghhhh - what next ???

Now we have sighted, non level matched and subjective tests from
Arny !!!!!!!

My defense - I called a spade a spade.


** Another wild assertion is no defence - just more lies.

Child ****ers like Michael Jackson can do better.



Just because the SM58 is cheap, readily available and widely
accepted, doesn't mean that its particularly good.


** Just because some ex US Army maintenance tech, compewter geek
and renowned anti-SM 58 bigot posts unsupported and meaningless
assertions against a famous product he irrationally hates doesn't mean
they are
any good either.

YMMV


** Child ****ers like Michael Jackson can do MUCH better.




............... Phil

Arny & Phil...
And yes I KNOW 'it's not just you' but you two are nailing the hell oput of
it so...
Understand this is in NO way an expression of any desire for your DECENT and
COGENT and LOGICAL and USEFUL usual donations to this forum to in any way
diminish or, worse, dissapear.

STOP THIS ****.
STOP THIS DAMNABLE IDIOTIC CATFIGHTING **** NOW.
TAKE IT BACK OVER TO RAO.
TAKE IT -ANYWHERE- BUT HERE.
STOP IS QUICKLY, CLEANLY, UNRESOLVED AND UNVICTORIOUS -NOW-
Please.



On 4/24/05 7:27 AM, in article , "Phil
Allison" wrote:

Child (SNIP)

Try a used AKG c535 (I have purchased on ebay for $125). The C535 is a
condenser with a very tight pattern.

John

SSJVCmag wrote:
Arny & Phil...
And yes I KNOW 'it's not just you' but you two are nailing the hell oput of
it so...
Understand this is in NO way an expression of any desire for your DECENT and
COGENT and LOGICAL and USEFUL usual donations to this forum to in any way
diminish or, worse, dissapear.

STOP THIS ****.
STOP THIS DAMNABLE IDIOTIC CATFIGHTING **** NOW.
TAKE IT BACK OVER TO RAO.
TAKE IT -ANYWHERE- BUT HERE.
STOP IS QUICKLY, CLEANLY, UNRESOLVED AND UNVICTORIOUS -NOW-
Please.

And you are helping how?

I think it is rather funny. Arny's own "test parameters" come back to
bite him in the butt. It sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

On 4/24/05 11:13 AM, in article , "Joe Sensor"
wrote:

And you are helping how?

Ok joe, you're on the list too.
Thanks bunches.
Sheeshe...


SSJVCmag wrote:
Arny & Phil...
And yes I KNOW 'it's not just you' but you two are nailing the hell oput of
it so...
Understand this is in NO way an expression of any desire for your DECENT and
COGENT and LOGICAL and USEFUL usual donations to this forum to in any way
diminish or, worse, dissapear.

STOP THIS ****.
STOP THIS DAMNABLE IDIOTIC CATFIGHTING **** NOW.
TAKE IT BACK OVER TO RAO.
TAKE IT -ANYWHERE- BUT HERE.
STOP IS QUICKLY, CLEANLY, UNRESOLVED AND UNVICTORIOUS -NOW-
Please.

On 4/24/05 10:45 AM, in article
, "
wrote:

Try a used AKG c535 (I have purchased on ebay for $125). The C535 is a
condenser with a very tight pattern.

OK... I keep hearing this and have NO clue where it came from.
Known and used these for AGES and that's the OPPOSITE of why I grab one...

The 535 is a top-drawer mic designed in the early-80's as a dedicated vocal
mic of Mercedes calibre and succeeds marvelously in reflecting it's heritage
to the 451/CK1 series of mics. As such (and the singular reason I have and
love them) is that it's is a CLASSIC cardioid pattern across most of its
range and beyond that KEEPS a good spectral match over most of its front
pattern. It's all of 5 dB down or so at 90deg off-axis (except at EXTREME hi
end where it narrows), hardly MY idea of a 'tight' pattern, and BECAUSE of
all that it:

A- Sounds wonderful even with singers with poor technique

B- helps in stage sound, by dint of its even coverage, by not causing odd
changing feedback points when it's moved or the performer moves in front of
it, and whatever it DOES pick up in the free field doesn't sound 'odd'.

C- doubles as a VERY desirable Anything Mic.

When these things plummeted from the $500+ range to the $200+ range several
years back I thought I'd died and gone to heaven. They should be flying out
store doors by the handful....
But 'tight pattern'?

I like you love these mics - I have 4 535s and always use one for
vocals when I sing out - sometimes I'll 535 my guitar along with a
Pendulum DI - have had lots of compliments on that set-up. My opinion
is based on my experience rather than science - so you may be
technically correct. For being a cardioid though, it seems tight to me.
I can't move off center of the 535 anywhere near as much as a 58 and
still sound good. Also, I just searched this group, and found that many
of the pros refer to the 535 in terms of a tight pattern. YMMV

John

SSJVCmag wrote about the C535:

When these things plummeted from the $500+ range to the $200+ range several
years back I thought I'd died and gone to heaven. They should be flying out
store doors by the handful....
But 'tight pattern'?

Well, compared with an SM-58, it's got a very tight pattern. Compared with
a Sennheiser 441 or a Neumann KMS105, it has a very wide pattern.

The EV 468 is another real sleeper... it has a very tight cardioid pattern
and a reasonably flat midrange with no presence peak, for about a hundred
bucks. It's a poor man's 441.
--scott

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

On 4/24/05 12:37 PM, in article , "Scott
Dorsey" wrote:


The EV 468 is another real sleeper... it has a very tight cardioid pattern
and a reasonably flat midrange with no presence peak, for about a hundred
bucks. It's a poor man's 441.

!!!!!!

Further Reading...

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep0.../direction.htm

Zigakly wrote:

Sounds like SM58's with compressors on them. Whenever there's drums in
small venues my limit for 58's is one, and the person insisting on using it
better have a damn good reason.

That's the attitude that gives SR people a bad name. You want me to come
up on stage and tell you to change basses, change amps? Think about it.

If someone wants to sing into a '58, my job is to make that work as well
as I can. If it doesn't work well my job is to try to explain why. If
the singer still wants that '58, I go with it.

--
ha

In article writes:

The EV 468 is another real sleeper... it has a very tight cardioid pattern
and a reasonably flat midrange with no presence peak, for about a hundred
bucks. It's a poor man's 441.

But it just doesn't LOOK like a vocal mic. You know how important that
is.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

On 4/24/05 7:21 PM, in article znr1114367321k@trad, "Mike Rivers"
wrote:


In article writes:

The EV 468 is another real sleeper... it has a very tight cardioid pattern
and a reasonably flat midrange with no presence peak, for about a hundred
bucks. It's a poor man's 441.

But it just doesn't LOOK like a vocal mic. You know how important that
is.

Man, does the BLUE ball mic in the BLUE spiderweb look like a vocal mic or
what!

"SSJVCmag"
Arny & Phil...


STOP THIS ****.
STOP THIS DAMNABLE IDIOTIC CATFIGHTING **** NOW.
TAKE IT BACK OVER TO RAO.


** Arny is the RAO freak - some 42, 000 posts.

Only a few crossposts ever arrived there from me.




................ Phil

"Joe Sensor"
SSJVCmag wrote:
Arny & Phil...
And yes I KNOW 'it's not just you' but you two are nailing the hell oput
of
it so...
Understand this is in NO way an expression of any desire for your DECENT
and
COGENT and LOGICAL and USEFUL usual donations to this forum to in any way
diminish or, worse, dissapear.

STOP THIS ****.
STOP THIS DAMNABLE IDIOTIC CATFIGHTING **** NOW.
TAKE IT BACK OVER TO RAO.
TAKE IT -ANYWHERE- BUT HERE.
STOP IS QUICKLY, CLEANLY, UNRESOLVED AND UNVICTORIOUS -NOW-
Please.

And you are helping how?

I think it is rather funny. Arny's own "test parameters" come back to bite
him in the butt. It sounds pretty hypocritical to me.



** Of course it is hypocrisy at its very worst and Arny has no excuse or
sane reply - Arny has revealed himself to be among the worst of
proselytising subjectivists WHEN it comes to items of audio gear ( ie mics)
HE gets emotional about.





............ Phil

In article writes:

Man, does the BLUE ball mic in the BLUE spiderweb look like a vocal mic or
what!

Perhaps from far enough away so that you can't tell that it looks like
a plastic Wiffle Ball.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

On 4/25/05 1:03 AM, in article , "Phil
Allison" wrote:


"SSJVCmag"
Arny & Phil...


STOP THIS ****.
STOP THIS DAMNABLE IDIOTIC CATFIGHTING **** NOW.
TAKE IT BACK OVER TO RAO.


** Arny is the RAO freak - some 42, 000 posts.

Only a few crossposts ever arrived there from me.

Thanks () for staying on topic and context (not) Phil. You two have been
posting cleanly and soley HERE, and at first it was dandy and actually
prductive discussion, then you both got all grapply and found it was time
for a wrestling match.
Get a room.

On 4/25/05 1:07 AM, in article , "Phil
Allison" wrote:


"Joe Sensor"
SSJVCmag wrote:
STOP THIS ****.
STOP THIS DAMNABLE IDIOTIC CATFIGHTING **** NOW.
TAKE IT BACK OVER TO RAO.
TAKE IT -ANYWHERE- BUT HERE.
STOP IS QUICKLY, CLEANLY, UNRESOLVED AND UNVICTORIOUS -NOW-
Please.


** Of course it is hypocrisy at its very worst and Arny has no excuse or
sane reply - Arny has revealed himself to be among the worst of
proselytising subjectivists WHEN it comes to items of audio gear ( ie mics)
HE gets emotional about.

Pssssttt...
psssttt...Phil
Hey, PHIL...

Take a look around...
I don¹t; even SEE Arny,
it's all YOU, never giving up!

Come back when you;re out of middle school.

SSJVCmag wrote:
On 4/25/05 1:07 AM, in article , "Phil
Allison" wrote:


"Joe Sensor"

SSJVCmag wrote:

STOP THIS ****.
STOP THIS DAMNABLE IDIOTIC CATFIGHTING **** NOW.
TAKE IT BACK OVER TO RAO.
TAKE IT -ANYWHERE- BUT HERE.
STOP IS QUICKLY, CLEANLY, UNRESOLVED AND UNVICTORIOUS -NOW-
Please.




** Of course it is hypocrisy at its very worst and Arny has no excuse or
sane reply - Arny has revealed himself to be among the worst of
proselytising subjectivists WHEN it comes to items of audio gear ( ie mics)
HE gets emotional about.


Pssssttt...
psssttt...Phil
Hey, PHIL...

Take a look around...
I don¹t; even SEE Arny,
it's all YOU, never giving up!

Come back when you;re out of middle school.

w.t.f? You seem to be making the most noise and it has nothing to do
with you.

"Joe Sensor" wrote in message ...

w.t.f? You seem to be making the most noise and it has nothing to do
with you.


Didn't you read the subject? It's a problem with vocals.

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:


Didn't you read the subject? It's a problem with vocals.


No no no... That's hypocrite, not hypercardioid.

"hank alrich" wrote in message
.. .
Zigakly wrote:

Sounds like SM58's with compressors on them. Whenever there's drums in
small venues my limit for 58's is one, and the person insisting on using
it
better have a damn good reason.

That's the attitude that gives SR people a bad name.

Almost as bad as doing a bad mix because the vocal mics are picking up too
much drums, and then blaming the vocalists for using the wrong mics. It's a
judgment call, and I have my preferences. In my neck of the woods
performers tend to appreciate such efforts.

You want me to come
up on stage and tell you to change basses, change amps? Think about it.

If there was a significant problem that could be reasonably solved that way,
why not? I've lent my Ampeg to a guy for a show because his amp was acting
up, didn't hold a gun to his head or anything...

If someone wants to sing into a '58, my job is to make that work as well
as I can. If it doesn't work well my job is to try to explain why. If
the singer still wants that '58, I go with it.

We disagree on the level of influence that we should have on vocal mic
selection. No big deal.