Mic recommendation for screamer?

[mcgraham]

[quote name='charic' timestamp='1319119205' post='1410161']
Effects and the like will follow in the future, funds are currently short unfortunately and the microphone is the first obvious replacement as it really is doing him no favors at all.

Thanks though, I will definitely keep and eye on tc gear.
[/quote]

Charic, compression and eq on vocals is NOT an effect - it's ESSENTIAL for taking your sound to a better level than wherever it's at. It's as essential as eq-ing your bass. Sure, if the bass is good to start with, you will likely have less to eq, but nevertheless you still end up having to make the conscious decision to EQ or not EQ. SM58's are good mics (only good, but good nonetheless) and having something like the T1 will fix A LOT of the issues that you have with the mic... it really does make vocals sound incredibly polished and crisp and sit/cut through a mix beautifully. It will make the subtle things your singer does jump out in a mix and make the massively loud things sit back against the backdrop of the band more appropriately.

At the end of the day, don't blame the kit. People are always too quick to blame the tools. Of course, good equipment helps, but if you don't know how to get the best from what you've got then buying better/more expensive gear just gives you better/more expensive gear that you still don't know how to optimally use.

Edited October 20, 2011 by mcgraham

[andydye]

[quote name='Ian Savage' timestamp='1319121038' post='1410207']

A real mod, I would imagine, to be implemented only by eejits; you're right, phantom power will then be shorted across the capsule which would likely cause damage to the mic and /or the desk's phantom supply. Unless I'm missing something...but I'm sure I'm not (I came across a cheap Chinese fake 58 last year which had no transformer at all, wouldn't use it for that reason...)
[/quote]

Actually, the phantom power issue is not technically proven, I do know someone who has done this and he is well pleased with the results...

I guess some noddy desks have phantom power on or off for the whole desk but generally it shouldn't be an issue...

[51m0n]

The sm57 mod is definitely used, and in some decent studios too, phantom power is irrelevant, its a dynamic mic.

Compression on live vocals is a recipe for feedback city unless you really know your beans, I would leave that up to the FOH if I were you.

You cant polish a turd, if the mic doesnt work with his voice then eq and compression can only do so much, and they can do less live due to feedback considerations.

[Ian Savage]

[quote name='andydye' timestamp='1319123074' post='1410253']
I guess some noddy desks have phantom power on or off for the whole desk but generally it shouldn't be an issue...
[/quote]

More and more these days, sadly; seems that a phantom switch per channel is solely the preserve of four-figure+ professional units now

Reading into it, I guess it's only an issue if your phantom regulating resistors are out, which condensers wouldn't be all that bothered by but which'd cause a d.c current through a transformer-less dynamic capsule; I was under the impression that removing the transformer would essentially unbalance the mic as the transformer centre-tap would be earthed, but apparently only the mic body is connected to earth.

Ignore me, it's been a long week

[mcgraham]

51mon, I could see in very high SPL environments with bad positioning of various sound sources that compression could exacerbate feedback issues, but I've never encountered such issues (also an example of where it's important to learn about your craft and take responsibility for your sound). That said, in any case T1 is a very subtle device, it just smooths off peaks and troughs rather than squashing the signal, and the eq is adaptive to respond to whatever is going into it. It is likely strokes for folks, but I'm a big fan of it as I've found it really can enhance a vocal performance whether solo or with a full loud band.

Edited October 20, 2011 by mcgraham

[51m0n]

[quote name='mcgraham' timestamp='1319124563' post='1410298']
51mon, I could see in very high SPL environments with bad positioning of various sound sources that compression could exacerbate feedback issues, but I've never encountered such issues (also an example of where it's important to learn about your craft and take responsibility for your sound). That said, in any case T1 is a very subtle device, it just smooths off peaks and troughs rather than squashing the signal, and the eq is adaptive to respond to whatever is going into it. It is likely strokes for folks, but I'm a big fan of it as I've found it really can enhance a vocal performance whether solo or with a full loud band.
[/quote]

Anywhere you are close to the point of feedback if you apply compression you will get to that point sooner.

I have done small venues with horrendous feedback with a small (loudish for the venue) band, and larger venues where the sheer number of mics on stage required to capture the large band involved meant the feedback threshold was very low.

Typically if you have a monitoring setup for a loud rock band the chances of feedback get pretty high, pretty quick - even with a decent 31 band geq. It is perfectly possible to use compression in these cases, but you should be aware that it will raise the average level and therefore make feedback happen sooner.

I have no idea what an 'adaptive eq' is or how it would work, fascinating, please explain!

[andydye]

[quote name='Ian Savage' timestamp='1319124198' post='1410285']

More and more these days, sadly; seems that a phantom switch per channel is solely the preserve of four-figure+ professional units now

Reading into it, I guess it's only an issue if your phantom regulating resistors are out, which condensers wouldn't be all that bothered by but which'd cause a d.c current through a transformer-less dynamic capsule; I was under the impression that removing the transformer would essentially unbalance the mic as the transformer centre-tap would be earthed, but apparently only the mic body is connected to earth.

Ignore me, it's been a long week
[/quote]

all good, I've had one too!

[mcgraham]

51mon, absolutely, I agree the compression would tip you over into feedback quicker than without in those cases, though I haven't found it to be an issue yet.

Re: adaptive eq - My understanding is it compares the incoming signal to an 'ideal' frequency response for vocals (there's a 'standard' eq setting that can be adjusted brighter or darker via a knob on the box), then adjusts the incoming signal to reflect that ideal response more closely. So if you've got a really bright voice you can darken it up or vice versa, and if you're a brighter voice singing high it will darken it up versus a darker voice singing lower in which case it'd brighten it up. I don't know the ins and outs, but it creates a very balanced vocal sound with minimum effort.

[51m0n]

Does it take into account the mic, and the pa and the room in any way?

I dont really see how it could work otherwise.....

[Ian Savage]

Re: compression on live vocals - it's an absolute ballache for mid-sized venues with mid-sized PAs, since as you say it's nice to have compression out front to even out the vocals a little bit, but if you apply that compression via the channel inserts (which is the 'standard' way of doing it), the compression ends up in the monitor mix as well, reducing your gain-before-feedback.

The way I found around it was to use a desk with sub-groups with insert points (Studiomaster Trilogy's my personal preference, but plenty of mid-range desks have got 'em now), then sub-group the FOH vocals and compress that sub-group to suit. Hey presto, compression in the out-front sound but not in the monitor mix (which will hopefully make singers ease off the mic a bit too - I've had nightmares engineering 'screamer' type vocalists, and combined with the habit some of them have of totally abusing the mic/cable I've come close to fisticuffs with more than one).

[mcgraham]

To my knowledge, it doesn't take those factors into account. I do not understand the digital trickery at work, all I know is, my voice and the mix sounds better for it and I've had lots of compliments that I can attribute to use of it.

[mcgraham]

Quick question, our church has a new PA setup and the sound has improved drastically from better equipment, but it still feels somewhat hollow and harsh top-end heavy... also, the vocals (other vocalists who do not use my magic box ) can often seem harsh yet distant in the mix... the overall mix seems fine in terms of respective levels, but it just doesn't seem right when put together. Live engineers, what would you guys recommend to help combat that and fill out the mix a bit more? boost the mids overall? stick light compression over the whole mix to bring it 'forward' a bit?

[Ian Savage]

What're you running at the minute? Graphic EQ would be my first port of call for that, but once you know how to use one a multi-band compressor can work wonders.

[charic]

[quote name='mcgraham' timestamp='1319121570' post='1410224']

Charic, compression and eq on vocals is NOT an effect - it's ESSENTIAL for taking your sound to a better level than wherever it's at. It's as essential as eq-ing your bass. Sure, if the bass is good to start with, you will likely have less to eq, but nevertheless you still end up having to make the conscious decision to EQ or not EQ. SM58's are good mics (only good, but good nonetheless) and having something like the T1 will fix A LOT of the issues that you have with the mic... it really does make vocals sound incredibly polished and crisp and sit/cut through a mix beautifully. It will make the subtle things your singer does jump out in a mix and make the massively loud things sit back against the backdrop of the band more appropriately.

At the end of the day, don't blame the kit. People are always too quick to blame the tools. Of course, good equipment helps, but if you don't know how to get the best from what you've got then buying better/more expensive gear just gives you better/more expensive gear that you still don't know how to optimally use.
[/quote]

Compression is a Dynamic effect and although in larger venues is a very nice too have, in smaller venues at high SPL it is a real recipe for disaster. EQ live is handled by the mixing desk where any sound engineer worth is salt will either know a good starting point for the venue or the singer (dependent on whether he is the venues engineer or the bands) and generally speaking a vocalist shouldn't really be touching it too much.

Also I have recorded my vocalist with the SM58 and I know the amount of editing required in order to get a good sound but the same vocalist through a different mic sounded much MUCH better. However the condenser in question really wouldn't suit live use at all (too fragile + too sensitive). Compression and EQ really aren't the concern at the moment as the primary worry really is getting the best possible result out of his vocals in the initial situation then feeding it to EQ.

I think of the SM58 like a P bass, a bass which is OK at a multitude of styles for a multitude of people but there are much better bass/microphones out there and a P bass will simply not suit some of us, much like the SM58 won't suit some vocalists.

[Rimskidog]

[quote name='Ian Savage' timestamp='1319121038' post='1410207']

A real mod, I would imagine, to be implemented only by eejits;
[/quote]

Eh? The 57/58 transformer mod is well known and well used. It opens the mic up and makes what for my taste is a pretty horrid mid rangy honky pos into something that's much more useable in many circumstances. Indeed, Mercenary even sells a modded sm57 (and a right angle modded 57 or they used to). As ever of course YMMV (if you've actually tried it...).

Edited October 21, 2011 by Rimskidog

[StraightSix]

[quote name='charic' timestamp='1318703048' post='1405454']
The SM58 is good for a lot of stuff but it's quite commonly found not to suit vocalists and ours is definately one of them.
[/quote]

I agree it doesn't suit all singers - have you tried the SM57...? It has a different frequency response and is preferred by many a top wailer (Mick Jagger, Paul Rogers etc.).

It is also a very cheap upgrade and I would also recommend trying some sort of Preamp/EQ/Compression pedal - I use a TC Helicon Correct which is very effective.

[Rimskidog]

[quote name='StraightSix' timestamp='1324067757' post='1470619']
I agree it doesn't suit all singers - have you tried the SM57...? It has a different frequency response and is preferred by many a top wailer (Mick Jagger, Paul Rogers etc.).

It is also a very cheap upgrade and I would also recommend trying some sort of Preamp/EQ/Compression pedal - I use a TC Helicon Correct which is very effective.
[/quote]

The only difference between the sm57 and 58 is the popshield/ball. To all intents and purposes the frequency response is the same.

[SebCarr]

That's true - but a pop shield or different head basket can make a very big difference to the sound of a microphone. But rather than buy an SM57, you can just remove the SM58 pop filter and see how it sounds to you.

OP - tried an SM7b? Some people love em. Apparently good for high SPL.

[StraightSix]

[quote name='Rimskidog' timestamp='1324074425' post='1470716']
The only difference between the sm57 and 58 is the popshield/ball. To all intents and purposes the frequency response is the same.
[/quote]

Wrong: http://www.shure.com/idc/groups/public/documents/webcontent/rc_img_sm58_large.gif

compared to: [url="http://www.shure.com/idc/groups/public/documents/webcontent/rc_img_sm57_large.gif"]http://www.shure.com..._sm57_large.gif[/url]

Edited December 16, 2011 by StraightSix

[51m0n]

Actually thats pretty similar as it goes....

They each have a rise in the top end, though the 57 doesnt have the same smoothing in that area (pop shield/head basket dampening resnances maybe?), but the 58 gets a bit of a dip.

Other than that they really arent that far apart, and if you take of the shield/basket from the 58 it does sound almost exactly like a 57 IME

[StraightSix]

Yes they are similar and yes it probably only comes from the different head shape but it is important to say that these two mics do sound different.

If you have a singer who's voice happens to be suited to one more than the other, it may make a pretty big improvement.

The chart show the (admittedly small) difference in response but for the price these are available for and the fact that the OP may have access to one easily to borrow, I think it is worthwhile to try.

The Shure SM7 is a classic recording mic for screamers but I'm not sure how well it would work live as it needs a fair bit of gain.

Edited December 17, 2011 by StraightSix

[Rimskidog]

[quote name='StraightSix' timestamp='1324079735' post='1470784'] Wrong: http://www.shure.com/idc/groups/public/documents/webcontent/rc_img_sm58_large.gif compared to: [url="http://www.shure.com/idc/groups/public/documents/webcontent/rc_img_sm57_large.gif"]http://www.shure.com..._sm57_large.gif[/url] [/quote]

Er, they are pretty much identical past 5k with minor differences (looks like 1 or 2db max) between 6-7k and fractionally over 10k caused entirely by the basket/foam. Go listen to a 1 db bump at 6.5k on a vocal and see what you can hear. As i said "to all intents and purposes" its the same. You *might* notice the 57 is marginally brighter. Most wouldnt. Indeed, the choice of pre and processing will probably affect the sound more than switching between these mics. (I have 3 of each of these mics in the studio and know them very well indeed). You are very welcome to come down some time when I'm quiet and compare for yourself if you don't believe me.

The SM7 works great live (yes I've got one and have often used it live) but given he said a T-funk M80 is out of his price range that will certainly be too expensive.

[gilmour]

I really like the Sontronics STC80 mics. Whether they'll work for you and your singer is up to you, but all there kit has really impressed me, price wise they're about the same as a 58.

http://www.sontronics.com/stc80.htm

[StraightSix]

Rimskidog - all I'm saying is that the difference in tonal quality may work for the OP and, for the price, it's an easy try-out.

Cheers

[LiamPodmore]

[quote name='Ian Savage' timestamp='1319134335' post='1410460']
Re: compression on live vocals - it's an absolute ballache for mid-sized venues with mid-sized PAs, since as you say it's nice to have compression out front to even out the vocals a little bit, but if you apply that compression via the channel inserts (which is the 'standard' way of doing it), the compression ends up in the monitor mix as well, reducing your gain-before-feedback.
[/quote]

A good way to get around this, like they do at Manchester Academy (3 and Club are the only ones i've seen so far) which is use a splitter snake, to send the original signal to FOH and the monitor desk too. Seems to work pretty well for them and they always seem to have a good sound both on and off stage.

Liam