Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Decisions
I am going to record my first multi-track live band next week and I would
like some advice on mic selection. Except for an electric guitar, the band is acoustic blue grass without percussion. The guitar does not play overly loud. This is an amplified performance with stage monitors. The two vocal mics that I have and love are supercardioid (KMS105). My concern is that they will pick up too much of the other instruments and monitors. I would like to know if I should use something lower sound quality like SM58s or go ahead with the supercardioids (concerned about feedback and bleed). This thought also applies to the banjo (played by an non singer) and acoustic guitar (played by the lead singer) where I would like to use KM184s. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. John |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
John Phillips wrote:
The two vocal mics that I have and love are supercardioid (KMS105). My concern is that they will pick up too much of the other instruments and monitors. I would like to know if I should use something lower sound quality like SM58s or go ahead with the supercardioids (concerned about feedback and bleed). This thought also applies to the banjo (played by an non singer) and acoustic guitar (played by the lead singer) where I would like to use KM184s. The KMS105 are amazingly narrower than anything else around for that sort of application. They will pick up too much leakage, but they will pick up orders of magnitude less leakage than an SM-58. The degree of rejection from the KMS105 (which is a hypercardioid, not a supercardioid) is amazing. Nothing made will give you less leakage, except maybe a Sennheiser 431 or tracking vocals seperately. Everything else you can probably just record with two appropriately positioned KM184s. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you so much for the experience, I will be able to save years of errors
in my learning with this NG. I am going to mic each instrument to its own track because the PA or monitor would spoil the sound for the KM184s if used as overall or "positioned" mics., I want to use the KM184a as close mics for the mandolin and banjo (I have two). I also understand that if I were truly talented that I could mix the performance live but with multi-track I can fix my novice errors in the mix. John "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... John Phillips wrote: The two vocal mics that I have and love are supercardioid (KMS105). My concern is that they will pick up too much of the other instruments and monitors. I would like to know if I should use something lower sound quality like SM58s or go ahead with the supercardioids (concerned about feedback and bleed). This thought also applies to the banjo (played by an non singer) and acoustic guitar (played by the lead singer) where I would like to use KM184s. The KMS105 are amazingly narrower than anything else around for that sort of application. They will pick up too much leakage, but they will pick up orders of magnitude less leakage than an SM-58. The degree of rejection from the KMS105 (which is a hypercardioid, not a supercardioid) is amazing. Nothing made will give you less leakage, except maybe a Sennheiser 431 or tracking vocals seperately. Everything else you can probably just record with two appropriately positioned KM184s. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
John Phillips wrote:
I am going to mic each instrument to its own track because the PA or monitor would spoil the sound for the KM184s if used as overall or "positioned" mics., I want to use the KM184a as close mics for the mandolin and banjo (I have two). I also understand that if I were truly talented that I could mix the performance live but with multi-track I can fix my novice errors in the mix. Got any other good condensers? There is no reason you can't both spotmike the instruments and get a good overall pair; there are plenty of tracks available. You may like one more, you may like the other, you may want to combine them. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... John Phillips wrote: I am going to mic each instrument to its own track because the PA or monitor would spoil the sound for the KM184s if used as overall or "positioned" mics., I want to use the KM184a as close mics for the mandolin and banjo (I have two). I also understand that if I were truly talented that I could mix the performance live but with multi-track I can fix my novice errors in the mix. Got any other good condensers? There is no reason you can't both spotmike the instruments and get a good overall pair; there are plenty of tracks available. You may like one more, you may like the other, you may want to combine them. You're going to get plenty of bleed. Just accept it and live with it. As Scott said, more directional mics like the KMS105 are a good thing. If you have a spare pair of mics (and tracks...you didn't say what you were using for a recorder) for stereo "overall", go ahead and do it. I've had very good results doing this at outdoor gigs when we (I was also in the band) were playing into 2 mics (for the whole band) with no monitors. Indoors, with monitors, your stereo pair may or may not be as satisfactory, but it won't hurt to have them if you have the spare mics and recording channels. Hal Laurent Baltimore |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I appreciate your experience with the KMS105, Scott. Mine was
completely opposite when used in a live sound setup. The Neumanns' GBF was nowhere close to as good as Shure Beta 87a. We were running a pair for vocals, with mains pretty close on the sides, no monitors. Could be different for recording at acoustic levels I guess.... Anyway, the OP needs to watch placement to avoid the hypercard lobes obviously. Steve |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
You might want to consider dynamic mics on the banjo & fiddle.
Al On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 01:38:19 GMT, "John Phillips" wrote: Thank you so much for the experience, I will be able to save years of errors in my learning with this NG. I am going to mic each instrument to its own track because the PA or monitor would spoil the sound for the KM184s if used as overall or "positioned" mics., I want to use the KM184a as close mics for the mandolin and banjo (I have two). I also understand that if I were truly talented that I could mix the performance live but with multi-track I can fix my novice errors in the mix. John "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... John Phillips wrote: The two vocal mics that I have and love are supercardioid (KMS105). My concern is that they will pick up too much of the other instruments and monitors. I would like to know if I should use something lower sound quality like SM58s or go ahead with the supercardioids (concerned about feedback and bleed). This thought also applies to the banjo (played by an non singer) and acoustic guitar (played by the lead singer) where I would like to use KM184s. The KMS105 are amazingly narrower than anything else around for that sort of application. They will pick up too much leakage, but they will pick up orders of magnitude less leakage than an SM-58. The degree of rejection from the KMS105 (which is a hypercardioid, not a supercardioid) is amazing. Nothing made will give you less leakage, except maybe a Sennheiser 431 or tracking vocals seperately. Everything else you can probably just record with two appropriately positioned KM184s. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The only other condensers that I have are the three Studio Projects B1s and
a single Shure Beta 87A (I may be able to get a second 87A. I am using the Digidesign 002 Rack and I only have 8 inputs at this time. To spot mic each vocal and each instrument will require at least 7 channels for this band. I know that I am going to get bleed but I do not want to start out with something that is a known failure. I am concerned about the KM184s with too much bleed and feedback. John "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... John Phillips wrote: I am going to mic each instrument to its own track because the PA or monitor would spoil the sound for the KM184s if used as overall or "positioned" mics., I want to use the KM184a as close mics for the mandolin and banjo (I have two). I also understand that if I were truly talented that I could mix the performance live but with multi-track I can fix my novice errors in the mix. Got any other good condensers? There is no reason you can't both spotmike the instruments and get a good overall pair; there are plenty of tracks available. You may like one more, you may like the other, you may want to combine them. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:37:21 -0500, John Phillips wrote
(in article ): I am going to record my first multi-track live band next week and I would like some advice on mic selection. Except for an electric guitar, the band is acoustic blue grass without percussion. The guitar does not play overly loud. This is an amplified performance with stage monitors. The two vocal mics that I have and love are supercardioid (KMS105). My concern is that they will pick up too much of the other instruments and monitors. I would like to know if I should use something lower sound quality like SM58s or go ahead with the supercardioids (concerned about feedback and bleed). This thought also applies to the banjo (played by an non singer) and acoustic guitar (played by the lead singer) where I would like to use KM184s. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. John The KMS 105 have one of the tightest patterns around. If you place your monitors in the nulls, I'm guessing you should be OK. A LOT depends on the monitors and PA. I get real nervous when people start bringing out instrument mics for PA gig. Bring both and allow time to experiment. Also be prepared to sacrifice tone (pickups instead of mics) for amplification. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 20:38:19 -0500, John Phillips wrote
(in article ): Thank you so much for the experience, I will be able to save years of errors in my learning with this NG. I am going to mic each instrument to its own track because the PA or monitor would spoil the sound for the KM184s if used as overall or "positioned" mics., I want to use the KM184a as close mics for the mandolin and banjo (I have two). I also understand that if I were truly talented that I could mix the performance live but with multi-track I can fix my novice errors in the mix. John And learn a lesson or two in how bleed on stage effects your attempt to capture each instrument individually with a mic. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
Steve Scott wrote: I appreciate your experience with the KMS105, Scott. Mine was completely opposite when used in a live sound setup. The Neumanns' GBF was nowhere close to as good as Shure Beta 87a. We were running a pair for vocals, with mains pretty close on the sides, no monitors. Could be different for recording at acoustic levels I guess.... One thing is that you can get the Beta 87 way up in your face without it popping and getting muffled, which is not the case for the KMS105, and that can be a big advantage for the Beta 87 on some singers. Also the exaggerated top end on the KMS105 is going to make for more feedback problems in the top octave (although you can EQ it down). Anyway, the OP needs to watch placement to avoid the hypercard lobes obviously. Yes. I don't see that as a huge problem but it's something to watch out for (and it may be part the reason for your experience too). --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
John Phillips wrote:
The only other condensers that I have are the three Studio Projects B1s and a single Shure Beta 87A (I may be able to get a second 87A. I am using the Digidesign 002 Rack and I only have 8 inputs at this time. To spot mic each vocal and each instrument will require at least 7 channels for this band. Well, try a pair of the B-1s as an overall stage pair. I know that I am going to get bleed but I do not want to start out with something that is a known failure. I am concerned about the KM184s with too much bleed and feedback. Bleed is _good_ for you. Bleed can be your friend. There's nothing wrong with adjacent instruments leaking into spot feeds, IF they sound good when they do. The key is to make the leakage sound good. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
One thing is that you can get the Beta 87 way up in your face without it popping and getting muffled, which is not the case for the KMS105, and that can be a big advantage for the Beta 87 on some singers. Also the exaggerated top end on the KMS105 is going to make for more feedback problems in the top octave (although you can EQ it down). I notice that as a rule Hypercardioids have quite a bit of high end lift. Do you think the high end lift is inherent in the hypercardioid design, or is the hyped high end part of a general desire to kick intelligibility up a notch. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote: One thing is that you can get the Beta 87 way up in your face without it popping and getting muffled, which is not the case for the KMS105, and that can be a big advantage for the Beta 87 on some singers. Also the exaggerated top end on the KMS105 is going to make for more feedback problems in the top octave (although you can EQ it down). Absolutely agree on this, and these were indeed large reasons why we could get stronger dynamics with less feedback with the Shures. In the KSM105 manual/literature Neumann repeatedly references IEM applications for this mic. And many if not most of the live applications I've seen it used on are using earbuds. Anyway, the OP needs to watch placement to avoid the hypercard lobes obviously. Yes. I don't see that as a huge problem but it's something to watch out for (and it may be part the reason for your experience too). Well, we weren't using floor monitors at the time, but of course room reflections could certainly add up. I mentioned the pattern lobes because the OP is using monitors, and of course the hyper/supercardioids usually don't like floor speakers directly behind them. Steve |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Nothing made will give you less leakage, except maybe a Sennheiser 431 Uhh, Scott, did you perhaps mean a 441? Oh wait, checking the data sheets shows the polar patterns of the 431 and 441 to be almost identical. My duh... Dave O'Heare oheareATmagmaDOTca |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message One thing is that you can get the Beta 87 way up in your face without it popping and getting muffled, which is not the case for the KMS105, and that can be a big advantage for the Beta 87 on some singers. Also the exaggerated top end on the KMS105 is going to make for more feedback problems in the top octave (although you can EQ it down). I notice that as a rule Hypercardioids have quite a bit of high end lift. Do you think the high end lift is inherent in the hypercardioid design, or is the hyped high end part of a general desire to kick intelligibility up a notch. It's not in any way inherent to the design, because there are plenty of hypercardioids out there that are quite flat and have no real presence peak or top end rise (and the EV N/D 468 is a common cheapie that is like this). The KMS105 is basically supposed to sound like a U87 sounds on-axis. It's voiced to have that huge, peaky top end, basically because singers asked for a mike that sounded like the way the U87 sounded in the studio. So it has the hypercardioid pattern for tight rejection and off-axis response that is as much as possible like the on-axis response, but it also has a very specifically tailored top end to make vocals more "airy" sounding. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Dave O'Heare oheareATmagmaDOTca wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Nothing made will give you less leakage, except maybe a Sennheiser 431 Uhh, Scott, did you perhaps mean a 441? Oh wait, checking the data sheets shows the polar patterns of the 431 and 441 to be almost identical. My duh... The 441 pops like mad as a vocal mike. It'll work on some vocalists if they will keep it far enough back, but most of them want to creep up too much on it. I think the 431 actually has a slightly wider pattern than the 441, but it's still very tight and it's much harder to pop. It will still pop more easily than an SM-58, though. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:29:27 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message One thing is that you can get the Beta 87 way up in your face without it popping and getting muffled, which is not the case for the KMS105, and that can be a big advantage for the Beta 87 on some singers. Also the exaggerated top end on the KMS105 is going to make for more feedback problems in the top octave (although you can EQ it down). I notice that as a rule Hypercardioids have quite a bit of high end lift. Do you think the high end lift is inherent in the hypercardioid design, or is the hyped high end part of a general desire to kick intelligibility up a notch. The schoeps cmc641 hyper s extremely natural, Arny. Do yourself a favor. Ty -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Ty Ford" wrote in message
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:29:27 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message One thing is that you can get the Beta 87 way up in your face without it popping and getting muffled, which is not the case for the KMS105, and that can be a big advantage for the Beta 87 on some singers. Also the exaggerated top end on the KMS105 is going to make for more feedback problems in the top octave (although you can EQ it down). I notice that as a rule Hypercardioids have quite a bit of high end lift. Do you think the high end lift is inherent in the hypercardioid design, or is the hyped high end part of a general desire to kick intelligibility up a notch. The schoeps cmc641 hyper s extremely natural, Arny. Do yourself a favor. At the price, that would indeed be a favor - as long as it was on someone else's visa card! ;-) |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 16:31:43 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Ty Ford" wrote in message On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:29:27 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message One thing is that you can get the Beta 87 way up in your face without it popping and getting muffled, which is not the case for the KMS105, and that can be a big advantage for the Beta 87 on some singers. Also the exaggerated top end on the KMS105 is going to make for more feedback problems in the top octave (although you can EQ it down). I notice that as a rule Hypercardioids have quite a bit of high end lift. Do you think the high end lift is inherent in the hypercardioid design, or is the hyped high end part of a general desire to kick intelligibility up a notch. The schoeps cmc641 hyper s extremely natural, Arny. Do yourself a favor. At the price, that would indeed be a favor - as long as it was on someone else's visa card! ;-) rent one. Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 18:02:01 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article znr1102615181k@trad): In article .com writes: Absolutely agree on this, and these were indeed large reasons why we could get stronger dynamics with less feedback with the Shures. In the KSM105 manual/literature Neumann repeatedly references IEM applications for this mic. And many if not most of the live applications I've seen it used on are using earbuds. So the mic is optimized for in-ear monitors, and not for the best house sound? How strange (or a strange interpretation of the literature, or a strange interpretation on my part of what you said). I think you put the cart before the horse. Last time I talked about it with anyone at Neumann, they said vocalists who use the mic thought it kicked butt in monitors. Not mention of in ear or floor wedges, etc. was mentioned. Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Ty Ford wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote squeegybug writes: Absolutely agree on this, and these were indeed large reasons why we could get stronger dynamics with less feedback with the Shures. In the KSM105 manual/literature Neumann repeatedly references IEM applications for this mic. And many if not most of the live applications I've seen it used on are using earbuds. So the mic is optimized for in-ear monitors, and not for the best house sound? How strange (or a strange interpretation of the literature, or a strange interpretation on my part of what you said). I think you put the cart before the horse. Last time I talked about it with anyone at Neumann, they said vocalists who use the mic thought it kicked butt in monitors. Not mention of in ear or floor wedges, etc. was mentioned. Contemporary referencing of in ear monitoring systems in the context of tech-marketing talk about mics is due to the increasing popularity of IEM's, making sure the prospective buyer appreciates that the mics will work with those, too. Nevermind the obvious: mics do or do not work with floor or in ear monitors according to the source signals, the performer's competence, the venue and the sound system operators. Our mileage varies according to vehicle, terrain and driver(s). -- ha |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote: In article writes: I think you put the cart before the horse. Last time I talked about it with anyone at Neumann, they said vocalists who use the mic thought it kicked butt in monitors. Not mention of in ear or floor wedges, etc. was mentioned. The KSM105, about which I think we're still talking? Well, I can certainly see that vocalists who were handed a mic specifically designed for live performance are presumably using it in live performance and therefore would have more to say about how it sounded in the monitors (whatever form they were using) than what it sounded like in the house. For that, you have to talk to the house engineers. I doubt Neumann would reference customers who preferred something other than Neumann...? All I can go on is my own experience. I used 'em, they didn't provide as much GBF as the Beta 87a, they sounded very "thin and light", no usable proximity effect for my baritone voice. As noted many times, this mic needs some distance from the singer, and that increases chances for extraneous sounds to cause problems (like from floor monitors, or in my case, close mains). I expect they could produce a nice sound if used with in-ear monitors rather than floor wedges, since the stage wash would be minimized. And I'm sure they provide decent sound in the FOH. But that high frequency boost that sounds appealing to some folks in the house speakers doesn't work very well onstage IMO. Steve |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:50:10 -0500, Steve Scott wrote
(in article .com): Mike Rivers wrote: In article writes: I think you put the cart before the horse. Last time I talked about it with anyone at Neumann, they said vocalists who use the mic thought it kicked butt in monitors. Not mention of in ear or floor wedges, etc. was mentioned. The KSM105, about which I think we're still talking? Well, I can certainly see that vocalists who were handed a mic specifically designed for live performance are presumably using it in live performance and therefore would have more to say about how it sounded in the monitors (whatever form they were using) than what it sounded like in the house. For that, you have to talk to the house engineers. I doubt Neumann would reference customers who preferred something other than Neumann...? All I can go on is my own experience. I used 'em, they didn't provide as much GBF as the Beta 87a, they sounded very "thin and light", no usable proximity effect for my baritone voice. As noted many times, this mic needs some distance from the singer, and that increases chances for extraneous sounds to cause problems (like from floor monitors, or in my case, close mains). I expect they could produce a nice sound if used with in-ear monitors rather than floor wedges, since the stage wash would be minimized. And I'm sure they provide decent sound in the FOH. But that high frequency boost that sounds appealing to some folks in the house speakers doesn't work very well onstage IMO. Steve I never cease to be amazed at the wide variance of responses about a mic on this newsgroup. My uses of a KMS 105 indicated plenty of proximity. So much so that, as you mention, a singer can't eat the mic. In my experience, "some distance" was about three inches. At three to five inches, the KMS 105 sounds great. If you have mic eaters for vocalists, they likely will not like the KMS 105. Maybe we can hear from some of them here to dispute the point. Thin and light for a baritone? Hmm was that in the monitors or mains? I have heard of some mixers who have had to rethink their knee-jerk vocal EQ settings when shifting from dynamic to condenser vocal mics, both in monitors and mains. I've seen guys with the HF boost on for dynamics NOT even think about reducing the boost when trying condenser mics on vocals. You'd think it would occur to them. I've seen it too many times. They'd rather rip off an arm than change a vocal EQ. It's really important to rethink the EQ at that point and not get trapped by old work habits. The there's the other trap; what's it supposed to sound like in the club? Club sound frequently suffers from the 200Hz to 800Hz build up. Unfortunately, too many sound dogs think that's "the ****." It is for the old school, but there's a new school that want a cleaner sound without the "club bump." Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Ty Ford wrote:
I've seen guys with the HF boost on for dynamics NOT even think about reducing the boost when trying condenser mics on vocals. You'd think it would occur to them. I've seen it too many times. They'd rather rip off an arm than change a vocal EQ. It's really important to rethink the EQ at that point and not get trapped by old work habits. There are lots of pseudo-pro and amateur live sound people who do not listen to what they are doing. They got the EQ settings from reading a magazine or a Usenet post. They don't know why the setting may or may not be useful and since they don't listen, progress will not be made. -- ha |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
hank alrich wrote:
Ty Ford wrote: I've seen guys with the HF boost on for dynamics NOT even think about reducing the boost when trying condenser mics on vocals. You'd think it would occur to them. I've seen it too many times. They'd rather rip off an arm than change a vocal EQ. It's really important to rethink the EQ at that point and not get trapped by old work habits. There are lots of pseudo-pro and amateur live sound people who do not listen to what they are doing. They got the EQ settings from reading a magazine or a Usenet post. They don't know why the setting may or may not be useful and since they don't listen, progress will not be made. TGFEP (Thank God For EarPlugs...) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Yet more Drum Micing decisions | Pro Audio | |||
What do you think of this Bush wire from 2nd debate? | Pro Audio | |||
Audio quackwatch | High End Audio | |||
The Audio Critic | High End Audio | |||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something) | High End Audio |