[JoeSpareBedroom[_2_]]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
I'll have specific model numbers by tomorrow for the two Audix vocal mics
I'm dealing with here, but for the moment, which, if any of the specs for
a
mic would tell you whether a mic is best used by singing extremely close,
perhaps an inch or two away, vs one which will work if the singer tends to
stay 4-8 inches away?

It has a lot more to do with the musical style, the singer, and the room
than it does with the mike.
--scott


By the way, the singer's wired mic is an Audix OM-2. With any luck, he'll
cut loose with the model # of his wireless Audix by the end of the week.

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
message

I got him a foam windscreen, but he thinks it looks
weird. I have yet to meet an audience member who
critiqued the appearance of any band's mics, but hey -
there's always a first time.

Just remind him that Devo made millions of dollars strictly on looking
weird. Get him a HUGE foam windscreen.

I have a female vocalist who removes the foamy from her mic because she
believes that it reduces the ability of the mic to "cut through" (her
words).

She may be right.

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

If it's an SM-58, it cuts off a huge amount of the top end. Try singing
into it with and without the ball and the sound difference is substantial.

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

Consider giving her a mike without a ball, then. SM-57 is a surprisingly
decent PA choice for a lot of vocalists if their technique is good and
their voice does well with the presence peak.
--scott

Audix OM5, OM6. Sennheiser MD431. We could go on.

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

If it's an SM-58, it cuts off a huge amount of the top
end. Try singing into it with and without the ball and
the sound difference is substantial.

It's not a SM-58

Scott *is* trying to help you.

That doesn't change the facts. The mic is not a SM-58. Am I supposed
to lie and say that its a SM58 to protect someone's feelings?

It came across as negative compared to simply say what mic you're using on
that vox, even though the problems in the design model imo are not all that
different between makes and models.

Windows?

Yes, and painted cinderblock and polished wood and stone

Windows are bad, they alternate between transparent and reflective,
traditional leaded are less bad. A modern building here in Copenhagen had a
perforated transparent foil fitted to a very large glass facade, changing it
from reflective to absorbing, quite possibly so costly that only an art
museum could afford the treatment.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Richard Kuschel]

On Aug 17, 9:25*am, (hank alrich) wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in


I got him a foam windscreen, but he thinks it looks
weird. I have yet to meet an audience member who
critiqued the appearance of any band's mics, but hey -
there's always a first time.

Just remind him that Devo made millions of dollars strictly on looking
weird. *Get him a HUGE foam windscreen.

I have a female vocalist who removes the foamy from her mic because she
believes that it reduces the ability of the mic to "cut through" (her
words).

She may be right.

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

If it's an SM-58, it cuts off a huge amount of the top end. *Try singing
into it with and without the ball and the sound difference is substantial.

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

Consider giving her a mike without a ball, then. *SM-57 is a surprisingly
decent PA choice for a lot of vocalists if their technique is good and
their voice does well with the presence peak.
--scott

Audix OM5, OM6. Sennheiser MD431. We could go on.

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


An MD 421 would work very well on a vocalist, especially with the
rolloff engaged. You won't overload it, but I'm sure that the vocalist
would think it looked funny.

I've had excellent results with screamers using the discontinued Shure
SM53 or SM54.

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Kuschel wrote:

An MD 421 would work very well on a vocalist, especially with the
rolloff engaged. You won't overload it, but I'm sure that the vocalist
would think it looked funny.

It was originally intended as a vocal mike, and it was used as such for
years and years.

There's a Byrds album with a photo of them singing into some of the early
cream-colored ones.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2010-08-17 (ScottDorsey) said:
An MD 421 would work very well on a vocalist, especially with the
rolloff engaged. You won't overload it, but I'm sure that the
vocalist would think it looked funny.
It was originally intended as a vocal mike, and it was used as such
for years and years.

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


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



Richard webb,

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k

Arny Krueger wrote:

If it's an SM-58, it cuts off a huge amount of the top
end. Try singing into it with and without the ball
and the sound difference is substantial.

It's not a SM-58

Scott *is* trying to help you.

That doesn't change the facts. The mic is not a SM-58.
Am I supposed to lie and say that its a SM58 to protect
someone's feelings?

It came across as negative compared to simply say what
mic you're using on that vox, even though the problems in
the design model imo are not all that different between
makes and models.

I know better than to reveal information that the critical minds around here
will twist into personal criticisms of me.

Look at this. You've managed to turn a simple brief statement that the mic
in quesiton is not a SM58 into a federal case.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

I know better than to reveal information that the critical minds
around here will twist into personal criticisms of me.

I didn't consider that angle, thank you for clarifying.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Glanbrok[_2_]]

Arnii Krooger, Perfeshunnel Rekording En-juh-near, holds forth on the
whys and wherefores of making really ****ty rekordings that no one
ever buys.

The good news

So you're still pretending to be a "christian", Turdy? The Kroopocrisy
never ends.

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

In case anyone's forgotten, the Krooborg is unwilling to post a sample
of its "professional" recording efforts. Rational humans know the
Beast is afraid to let its "work" be known among its betters because
the quality thereof is so ****ty.