Vocal microphone question

[TheChorltonWheelie]

I don't know many major producers/engineers that still use NS10s...

Nor me -- but I fear you missed my point.
H

I don't think I have, or rather I probably didn't make my point well enough.

Those "old school" views are disappearing, that's what I was trying to say, so the default choice of SM58/NS10 is also disappearing as those coming through have happened across far, far better alternatives.

Those, in my experience, that still hold a torch for the SM58 do so not because they can't work with other equipment, but perhaps through stubbornness or reluctance to move with the times. 10-20 years ago, people recommended the SM58 because there wasn't much competition, so it was an easy choice.

[TheChorltonWheelie]

Responding to TheChorltonWheelie:
It's a funny one that isn't it? Seems to be quite common for singers to want to skimp on kit...

But singers?
Still, it's not like most of the audience are primarily listening to the vocal melody and the lyrics... oh, wait,

What's very odd is that a mic that suits your voice can move you up several notches in terms of how the audience perceive you, and more importantly then how you perceive yourself, but still the vast majority of singers will skimp and present themselves with something of quite poor quality.

I know plenty of solo tribute acts, on £500+ per show upwards, that'll turn up with cheap wireless kit that has 4 possible frequencies, instead of investing in something that's top-notch that'll never give them problems as well as showcasing their voice. It's as though at "Tribute school" rule #1 is "Never, ever, ever, spend any more than £100 on your main working tool".

On the other scale, I'll gig with named acts that'll only use their own mics, and they're almost always top-notch pieces of kit specifically chosen for their voice.

[Moroccomoose]

I don't think it is that odd. if you consider influencing artists.

Everyone knows Clapton plays a fender; Slash, a Les paul; Dave Stewart a white falcon; Carlos Santana PRS etc. The guitar looks 'cool', aesthetically pleasing, its part of the image. Who knows (or more importantly cares about) what mic Freddie Mercury, Robert Plant, Aretha Franklin or Ceelo Green used, even less so what PA/monitors.

The point is that the mic does not make up part of the 'image' of the performer, it is very much just a tool. If possible, they wouldn't have one at all, hence the lack of attention to the whys and wherefores of any particular mic over another.

Stu.

[TheChorltonWheelie]

I don't think it is that odd. if you consider influencing artists.

Who knows (or more importantly cares about) what mic Freddie Mercury, Robert Plant, Aretha Franklin or Ceelo Green used, even less so what PA/monitors.

Freddie, Robert, Aretha all know what mics they used, they'd all have a very specific choice that they would normally always stick to.

Just because people don't know which mic their favourite artist uses, it doesn't equate that they shouldn't therefore care what mic they use, or whether in fact they're using a mic that suits their voice.

The point is that the mic does not make up part of the 'image' of the performer

And that's not the attitude of most professionals, i.e. choosing something on image alone, or whether their favourite artist uses. A bedroom/home musician, possibly, but someone that's earning their living from their equipment would be basing their decisions on that.

I like Hank Marvin. I play a fiesta red Strat. Hank plays a fiesta red Strat. However, I don't play a fiesta Strat because Hank plays one, I play a Strat because it's very versatile.

[Drew Stephenson]

I think I'd agree to that as an audience member, but as a performer? Especially if your only instrument is your voice?
A, ahem, few years ago, when I was gigging a lot more (and with a lot more purpose) I went and tried out a few vocal mics that were a cut above an SM58 (I ended up with a Beta87). It's not so much about influencing artists (I have no idea what microphones Paul Simon or Tom McRae use ) but I recognised that there were better bits of kit out there than I was using.

But thinking back on that experience actually brings me full circle to answer TheChorltonWheelie's question about why one might buy an SM58, and my answer would be that if you're at the bottom of the bill, there's a good chance that anywhere you turn up to play, that will be what you're presented with. And good luck arguing with the sound man about swapping in your own mic.
So if you know you're most likely to be performing with one, may as well have one to practise with.

[TheChorltonWheelie]

And good luck arguing with the sound man about swapping in your own mic.

That's the REAL issue in this thread; many a time a FOH engineer has had conniptions because I've had the temerity to use a microphone, that I've notified them of in advance via my technical spec, that doesn't match what they're expecting.

I dare not use my real name, or the tributes that I'm in, as I know a few of those FOH engineers frequent this forum!!

[N i g e l]

The point is that the mic does not make up part of the 'image' of the performer, it is very much just a tool.

I would disagree with that. The mic may be used to emphasise the era of a performance.
The Shure 55, SM58 or one of those 1930s BBC (ribbon?) presenter mics, all present a different image, even if they are clones with modern electronics.

[Moroccomoose]

You're quite right , of course it's not cut and dry. But I'd still maintain that as gear gets more utilitarian, performers will be less enthused about detail and technicalities. I'd put mics and PAs further up the utilitarian scale than guitars and guitar amps.

I suppose it's because, arguably, the mic is not the instrument, it's the means to capture the performance. I'd bet the problem is equally prevalent when instrument sound re enforcement is required.

I did a bit of backing vocals in my old band. I had a knock off Chinese SM 58...It was crap! But at least all the spit in it was my own!

[James Perrett]

The thing about the SM58 is that it works acceptably in more situations than any of the other alternatives. This may not be so relevant these days when the quality of the rest of the PA system is generally better but in the 70's and 80's you had to be pretty sure of the quality your system if you wanted to use an alternative. I also tend to find that the alternatives work well on certain voices but not so well on others - again the SM58 wins out by working reasonably well on just about any voice. That's why it is popular with venues and PA companies that deal with a wide variety of voices.

[Bob Bickerton]

I think one reason the SM58 is still considered industry standard - and it is - is because it was established as such when there wasn't much else in the way of competition, sound companies always had them available, and then there was an explosion of alternative options, which meant sound companies either had to have a myriad range of mics, or stick to what was still being specified on technical riders (because most musicians knew most sound companies would have SM58s available).

It's a reverse chicken and egg situation - the SM58 came first, became widely known and is still sitting on its perch.

There was a time when we had around 10 or 12 different vocal microphones in the collection and on vocalists who were 'unspecified' we'd try and match the mic to the voice and/or environment. Without question the OM7 was the most feedback resistant - but was very reliant on being eaten.

e945 cuts like mad - but sometimes that's what you need. KMS105 - closest to a studio sound on stage. Beyer TGv70d warm with a lovely top end

More often than not I'd put up a Beyer M69, a very underrated microphone. Hopeless handling noise, so not for cabaret, but a mic that worked on most voices well. Another favourite the e840 - Sennheiser's equivalent to the SM58 and IMHO far better in every respect!

BUT, if you have a rock and roller who is going to swing the mic on the end of the cable they get a 58 - end of story.

Bob

[Mike Stranks]

Just as an alternative to the downbeat tone of some posts...

I was/am (usually) delighted when an act turns up with their own vocal mic(s). Shows they take an interest in their sound... However, if it was a 58 I'd often try and persuade them to use something different after I'd heard them sing. They'd often be pleased to accept my suggestion.

However, I remember when a vocalist turned up with a battered beta 58. I did my usual 'persuasion' act to no avail. Politely insistent about the beta 58... He was right; he sounded superb through the system; he knew his mic and how to get the best from it.

[Sam Spoons]

IME there are two reasons for a performer bringing their own mic* :-

1, They like the sound of it,

2, They don't want to catch bugs of your mic. (this is much more likely)

* I'd forgotten #three actually, sometime they like what they have because the salesman told them they sounded fantastic through it.......

But, if a performer comes and says, "I like to use this mic/reverb/eq/WHY then give them a chance and if they clearly know what they are about you have an easy day. My job as a sound engineer is twofold, to make them sound good, and, to keep them happy, the audience didn't come to watch the sound guy.

[shufflebeat]

All interesting and valid opinions but I have a slightly different take on this.

You will notice that I didn't suggest the OP buy a '58, I suggested he audition it. I don't feel I (or anyone else) am qualified to make a definitive recommendation until we've heard it and (this is the important bit) the OP has a chance to hear/feel how the mic reacts to their voice.

All the mics on my list are ones I use regularly. The band I regularly do live sound for all started off with '58s, now, on my recommendation they are on a mix of Audix, Sennheiser and EV. Depping guests get the chance to use their own but if it's bobbins they will be told. I wouldn't lose any friends over it but they generally take the advice well.

As a singer I've used a variety of stage mics. My favourite for years (always welcomed by old school FOH guys) was a Beyer Soundstar II which I found made me sing better. It wasn't a "detail" or "air" thing or just being able to hear myself over the din, it just reacted in a way that encouraged me to experiment and stretch myself. It died when some crazy dancers got tangled in the mic lead and whipped it across the room where it disintegrated under 100 stamping feet.

Nowadays I have my choice of the above, and others, including Beyers and EV. I find they make me sing differently. The OM-7 is a good mic to turn up loud and sing gently into, as is the e935. This is not something normally associated with the OM-7. I didn't like the kms105 because, although it sounded silky and beautifully detailed (and retailed) it didn't give me any particular "angle" to work with, it was soul-less. The woman who came after me whose mic it was made it sound sublime.

If you have the right voice the '58 makes you sing from either your throat or your resonant chest cavities. If you choose the former you will have a permanent sore throat, if the latter you can sing forever without strain and fill the room with strong and melodic, if not very detailed, richness. It's a bit lo-res, but so am I.

[awjoe]

As a singer I've used a variety of stage mics. My favourite for years (always welcomed by old school FOH guys) was a Beyer Soundstar II which I found made me sing better. It wasn't a "detail" or "air" thing or just being able to hear myself over the din, it just reacted in a way that encouraged me to experiment and stretch myself.

That's very interesting. And would you say the same is true of studio mics - that some make you sing better? And why? Because they sound good on your voice?

[ef37a]

Madness tribute band?

We had the real thing two weeks ago at Franklins Gardens (NN5 5BG) and I could hear Suggs and drums very clearly over half a click away at NN5 5P# .

No idea what mic or PA rig he runs but I could hear every word and I am deaf! The sound quality was also excellent with no trace of distortion.
My daughter was at the concert and said the band was not unduly loud. She has been to many punk gigs that were ear melting! (I actually have some of the concert captured on my hedgehog recording setup. Rubbish mics mind since they have to handle the rain!)

BTW, my mention of the SM58 was just an example. Yes there are better mics (however you judge that) but my point was, the laws of physics have not changed and getting adequte level and avoiding acoustic feedback is not just a property of the microphone and even "the best in the world" is only going to gain you a few dBs over a 58 unless you go for special noise cancelling types (or gaffer two together OOP) .

Dave.

[shufflebeat]

As a singer I've used a variety of stage mics. My favourite for years (always welcomed by old school FOH guys) was a Beyer Soundstar II which I found made me sing better. It wasn't a "detail" or "air" thing or just being able to hear myself over the din, it just reacted in a way that encouraged me to experiment and stretch myself.

That's very interesting. And would you say the same is true of studio mics - that some make you sing better? And why? Because they sound good on your voice?

The point of that post is - "good" is not binary. Contributors tend to talk about either the technical specs of a mic or the experience of the FOH tech, as might be expected and is perfectly reasonable. I would argue the perspective and experience of the performer is also an important factor and there is not 100% overlap with the others.

It's also worth bearing in mind that mics do not sound "good" on their own, even on a particular voice. It's perfectly possible to make any one of these sound bad.

[Mike Stranks]

Wise words, Sir Shuffles...

[Sam Spoons]

IIRC the OP has a SM58 already.

He is a Madness tribute (and very good if his showreel is anything to go by) but no band, he works with backing tracks.

[Bob Bickerton]

and even "the best in the world" is only going to gain you a few dBs over a 58

Actually our A/B tests would suggest the OM7 gives you considerably more gain before feedback, which answers the original question.

Not saying that’s the best option for the OP, but in the numerous mics I have tried, nothing comes even close in terms of feedback rejection. Just saying.......

Bob

[ore_terra]

I haven't tried the OM7, but I can say that the feedback rejection in the OM6 is simply amazing.

most frequent comparison is with the beta 58 of my band's singer in rehearsals, and the OM6 performs considerably better in this aspect.

[shufflebeat]

...nothing comes even close in terms of feedback rejection. Just saying.......

Bob

Agreed, you really have to try to get the OM-7 to feed back. Luckily I know some terrifically persistent and tireless singers.

[Dave B]

Just doing a quick read on some of the suggestions.

With the OM7, it mentions that the low output means that you need a desk with a hefty amount of gain. Does anyone know how hefty that would typically be?

(I'm thinking that if the OP's small Yamaha desk doesn't have the grunt, this would be a non-starter)

The Senny 935 just about creeps in under budget. I do wonder if I should get one to try out. Just not sure if I should go for the 935 or 945 - I know the 935 is cardioid and the 945 hyper, so are they voiced differently? I find that the AKG D7 I have tends to be just a bit better sounding than the D5s we use.

[Wonks]

Well, the D7 is significantly more expensive than the D5, so you'd expect to hear an improvement. But it's not down to the polar pattern.

D7 = Supercardiod https://www.akg.com/Microphones/Dynamic%20Microphones/D7.html?
D5 = Supercardioid https://www.akg.com/Microphones/Dynamic%20Microphones/D5.html?dwvar_D5_color=Dark%20Blue-GLOBAL-Current#start=1
D5C = Cardioid https://www.akg.com/Microphones/Dynamic%20Microphones/D5C.html?dwvar_D5C_color=Dark%20Blue-GLOBAL-Current#start=1

[Bob Bickerton]

Just doing a quick read on some of the suggestions.

With the OM7, it mentions that the low output means that you need a desk with a hefty amount of gain. Does anyone know how hefty that would typically be?

(I'm thinking that if the OP's small Yamaha desk doesn't have the grunt, this would be a non-starter)

The Senny 935 just about creeps in under budget. I do wonder if I should get one to try out. Just not sure if I should go for the 935 or 945 - I know the 935 is cardioid and the 945 hyper, so are they voiced differently? I find that the AKG D7 I have tends to be just a bit better sounding than the D5s we use.

Haven’t had gain issues with the OM7 but as mentioned it is designed to be used on the lips which somewhat compensates for lower output.

Regarding the 945, it really does have a serious high end lift and would not suit a number of voices, so do try before you buy.

What sound are you looking for? Voice range?

Bob

[AlecSp]

The Senny 935 just about creeps in under budget. I do wonder if I should get one to try out. Just not sure if I should go for the 935 or 945 - I know the 935 is cardioid and the 945 hyper, so are they voiced differently? I find that the AKG D7 I have tends to be just a bit better sounding than the D5s we use.

Would it be just for you or for general purpose use?
If general purpose, then I'd recomend the 935 over the 945 like a shot, as the cardoid response makes them much more forgiving. I'd only use my 945 for a singer that had the right technique, where the monitoring arrangement was suitable, or if there was a situation that really called for the supercardoid response. So, my most frequent candidates are experienced singers using in-ears and drummers.
For anyone else, it's defo a 935.

If for you then, as with any mic, try before you buy, and compare, as that's the only way you'll ever know.

And specifically in response to your question, I don't find them voiced differently, but the response is definitely the defining attribute of each.