ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: best mic from my collection for feedback  (Read 2896 times)

Scott Bolt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 671
Re: best mic from my collection for feedback
« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2013, 11:03:12 pm »

Unless you plan on meeting riders for metal acts I wouldn't go with the OM-7. The OM-6 has about the same response but does not have the reduced output (intended to prevent or reduce input overload from screamers).  The OM-5 is similar to the 6 but adds a presence peak. 

The problem with the 7 is mainly having to turn the input gain up on the board significantly more then you are used to with other mics. Not so bad if you have plenty of time to dial things in, but can be a PITA in what we call 'combat audio'.
I actually prefer the EV ND767a to both of those microphones anyway.  It is a smoother more articulate microphone and it has excellent resistance to feedback.
Logged

Mark McFarlane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1599
  • Middle East
    • Arkose Records
Re: best mic from my collection for feedback
« Reply #11 on: February 16, 2013, 11:10:52 pm »

Unless you plan on meeting riders for metal acts I wouldn't go with the OM-7. The OM-6 has about the same response but does not have the reduced output (intended to prevent or reduce input overload from screamers).  The OM-5 is similar to the 6 but adds a presence peak. 

The problem with the 7 is mainly having to turn the input gain up on the board significantly more then you are used to with other mics. Not so bad if you have plenty of time to dial things in, but can be a PITA in what we call 'combat audio'.

Another problem with the OM7 (due to pattern and sensitivity) is it needs to be pointing down the throat of the singer right near the lips to get the specified frequency response and a decent amount of gain  (think of a flashlight lighting up someone's tonsils).  Not a mic I would use for amateurs. It's a good mic for a pro on a rock and roll stage but it really wants you to eat the mic.

In my early days I often used my one OM7 for the lead vocalist.  I learned very quickly that most singers don't 'stay on the mic' like they need to to get consistent results from an OM-7.
Logged
Mark McFarlane
ARKOSERECORDS
Turn down what's too loud.

Brian Jones

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 93
  • Modesto, CA but still hang in Sac Metro area a lot
    • Bee Herd Audio
Re: best mic from my collection for feedback
« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2013, 02:27:31 am »

Thanks again everyone.
The gig was earlier today and in large part to information received here, it was the most successful yet. This is the 4th year I've done this gig and only my 8th live gig total. I bought equipment and have been learning "on the job" and it hasn't been pretty, but everyone is grateful to just have a professional system so I've been lucky.

I ended up not using the monitors at all. The vocal group wasn't used to using them, so I suggested they not try to learn now and explained it could actually be a detriment and they agreed. With the spoken word stuff, I just didn't even offer it up.

The biggest problem I had was the wireless lav mic for the presenter. I didn't think I was going to have any problem at all with it which is why I didn't even mention it earlier. Plus, it wasn't something where I had options.

I set up an SM58 as a backup but we never had to go to that. I got a lot of feedback almost immediately with the AT freeway 700 lav mic, but it went away when I dialed it back. The audio level was a little lower than I wanted, but very comfortable to listen to nonetheless. My FOH booth was about 3/4 of the way back so I'm sure it was good coverage. I'm not sure why I was getting feedback. He was well behind the mains and no monitors were powered up. The only thing I can figure is, the room was more reflective than I thought. Ceiling was acoustic tile, side wall mostly curtain with some windows exposed. Concrete on other wall, hard lino floor but there was a full house so lots of bodies to absorb the audio. Mains were running through a dbx 231 with an upside down smiley to enhance vocals.
Logged

Bob Leonard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4343
  • Boston, MA USA
Re: best mic from my collection for feedback
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2013, 07:54:34 am »

An upside down smiley, and plenty of mid range in the vocals which may be where most of the feedback was coming from. In places where the end result will be unknown it's sometimes best to start with the EQ flat and with 0db gain. From that point you would mostly remove EQ where it matters most or bump the EQ where most needed. Smileys (or frowns) are not a good thing.
Logged
BOSTON STRONG........

Now touring nursing homes in a neighborhood near you..

Brian Jones

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 93
  • Modesto, CA but still hang in Sac Metro area a lot
    • Bee Herd Audio
Re: best mic from my collection for feedback
« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2013, 01:02:07 pm »

An upside down smiley, and plenty of mid range in the vocals which may be where most of the feedback was coming from. In places where the end result will be unknown it's sometimes best to start with the EQ flat and with 0db gain. From that point you would mostly remove EQ where it matters most or bump the EQ where most needed. Smileys (or frowns) are not a good thing.

Actually the top of the frown was approximately flat with what amounted to low cut and high cut filters on the extreme highs and lows because I didn't anticipate any need for reproduction at the extremes of the audio spectrum. I wasn't boosting anything with the EQ. As it turns out, there was a flute in addition to the acoustic guitar on one song during the "acapella" act. I haven't checked my reference guide yet to see if flutes extend into the range I cut or not.

In between this gig (yesterday) and the next (October) I think I'll make a serious attempt at implementing the best I can the mic and speaker corrections so I don't have to touch those which will leave room correction only day of gig. Would a cheap Nady or Behringer reference mic and a copy of TrueRTA be sufficient for my needs? I have an audio interface for my laptop (M-Audio MobilePre).

Also, when doing correction on mics, would a 15 band EQ be overkill vs. just using the 4 band channel strip EQ on my MixWizard? If not, I might pick up a 4 channel 15-band EQ for my rack.
Logged

dick rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5562
  • St Paul MN
Re: best mic from my collection for feedback
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2013, 01:12:07 pm »

Actually the top of the frown was approximately flat with what amounted to low cut and high cut filters on the extreme highs and lows because I didn't anticipate any need for reproduction at the extremes of the audio spectrum. I wasn't boosting anything with the EQ. As it turns out, there was a flute in addition to the acoustic guitar on one song during the "acapella" act. I haven't checked my reference guide yet to see if flutes extend into the range I cut or not.

Setting your GEQ to what you "imagine" is not generally a good idea.  You need to use your ears and learn how to make adjustments to real-time conditions.

Quote

Also, when doing correction on mics, would a 15 band EQ be overkill vs. just using the 4 band channel strip EQ on my MixWizard? If not, I might pick up a 4 channel 15-band EQ for my rack.

If you're going to add "fine-tuning" EQ to a channel or sub-group, don't use GEQ.  Use a 5 band fully parametric EQ.  A Klark-Teknik DN410 is great.  Either 5 x 2 channels or 10 x 1 switchable.  You can also find Rane PEQ's for reasonable used, but the power supplies are kind of a PITA.

Forget 15 band GEQ's.  They're not worth the rack space.
Logged
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

Brian Jones

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 93
  • Modesto, CA but still hang in Sac Metro area a lot
    • Bee Herd Audio
Re: best mic from my collection for feedback
« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2013, 02:29:15 pm »

Setting your GEQ to what you "imagine" is not generally a good idea.  You need to use your ears and learn how to make adjustments to real-time conditions.

If you're going to add "fine-tuning" EQ to a channel or sub-group, don't use GEQ.  Use a 5 band fully parametric EQ.  A Klark-Teknik DN410 is great.  Either 5 x 2 channels or 10 x 1 switchable.  You can also find Rane PEQ's for reasonable used, but the power supplies are kind of a PITA.

Forget 15 band GEQ's.  They're not worth the rack space.

I'm learning to tune via my ears little by little. I did that when adjusting the EQ for the monitors the day before the gig and surprised myself by how much better I made them sound.

Still I think limiting the signal to the frequency range of what the content is seems prudent, don't you? It's the same concept basically as adding a gate to a microphone -- filtering out that which isn't part of the actual content. I should have toyed with the EQ pseudo high cut when I noticed the flute, but didn't think of it and really I didn't notice the flute sound as if it was lacking high end so I don't think cutting the highest octave affected it. At least it wasn't a piccolo.

And thanks for the advice on PEQ vs. 15-band GEQ. I'll look into that.
Logged

Scott Wagner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 691
  • Richmond, VA
Re: best mic from my collection for feedback
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2013, 02:43:05 pm »

I'm learning to tune via my ears little by little. I did that when adjusting the EQ for the monitors the day before the gig and surprised myself by how much better I made them sound.

Still I think limiting the signal to the frequency range of what the content is seems prudent, don't you? It's the same concept basically as adding a gate to a microphone -- filtering out that which isn't part of the actual content. I should have toyed with the EQ pseudo high cut when I noticed the flute, but didn't think of it and really I didn't notice the flute sound as if it was lacking high end so I don't think cutting the highest octave affected it. At least it wasn't a piccolo.

And thanks for the advice on PEQ vs. 15-band GEQ. I'll look into that.
Personally, I wouldn't EQ anything without there being some particular audible need for the correction.  Of course, the variable HPFs on my desk see a lot of use.  EQs, by their very nature, induce phase errors while they do their job.  It's best to have no EQ, but the reality is that it is often necessary.
Logged
Scott Wagner
Big Nickel Audio

dick rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5562
  • St Paul MN
Re: best mic from my collection for feedback
« Reply #18 on: February 18, 2013, 02:55:30 pm »

I'm learning to tune via my ears little by little. I did that when adjusting the EQ for the monitors the day before the gig and surprised myself by how much better I made them sound.

Still I think limiting the signal to the frequency range of what the content is seems prudent, don't you? It's the same concept basically as adding a gate to a microphone -- filtering out that which isn't part of the actual content. I should have toyed with the EQ pseudo high cut when I noticed the flute, but didn't think of it and really I didn't notice the flute sound as if it was lacking high end so I don't think cutting the highest octave affected it. At least it wasn't a piccolo.

And thanks for the advice on PEQ vs. 15-band GEQ. I'll look into that.

There are, at the least, three levels of EQ:

PEQ (delay/filtering) in the system EQ/driver alignment
System (or room) EQ, usually a 31 band GEQ
Individual (channel strip) EQ

Each has a different purpose.  Some of what you're talking about is better done on channel strip as using the "house" or other outboard EQ will affect more than just the voice you're dealing with (the flute, for example).

As to EQ'ing for it to "sound good" and trying to sculpt the sound, I'd say that you should start thinking at the INPUT, then the channel and so on down the line.  But first......

You should (again) not work from your imagination, but from empirical evidence.  Learn how to use whatever EQ tools you have which are controlling the spectral output of your console/speakers to get the best fit of the system to the room.  Your system is not separate from the space in which you're running.

An enclosed space will exhibit a characteristic sound brought on by complex interactions between the dimensions, surface compositions, etc.  You can and should know how to "ring out" a system to alleviate the "hot" frequencies, standing waves, room modes......whatever you want to call them.  Only then can you begin to utilize your system to the max.

Without proper system setup (positioning/gain-staging/ring-out), none of the subtle adjustments you'd like to make will be effective...or as predictable as you would like.
It's like a guitar.  Someone hands you an instrument with the strings tuned in a random fashion.  You put your fingers on the frets in a standard chord formation, but........WTF.  It doesn't come out like its' supposed to.

A system must be tuned like any other instrument which produces musical sounds.  That's what you've got to learn.  Once you learn that, then you can use your imagination to get creative.  But you can't tune a system to a room by imagining what you "think" might work.  You've got to do it step by step, by the book.   
Logged
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

Scott Bolt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 671
Re: best mic from my collection for feedback
« Reply #19 on: February 18, 2013, 10:05:45 pm »

Thanks again everyone.
The gig was earlier today and in large part to information received here, it was the most successful yet. This is the 4th year I've done this gig and only my 8th live gig total. I bought equipment and have been learning "on the job" and it hasn't been pretty, but everyone is grateful to just have a professional system so I've been lucky.

I ended up not using the monitors at all. The vocal group wasn't used to using them, so I suggested they not try to learn now and explained it could actually be a detriment and they agreed. With the spoken word stuff, I just didn't even offer it up.

The biggest problem I had was the wireless lav mic for the presenter. I didn't think I was going to have any problem at all with it which is why I didn't even mention it earlier. Plus, it wasn't something where I had options.

I set up an SM58 as a backup but we never had to go to that. I got a lot of feedback almost immediately with the AT freeway 700 lav mic, but it went away when I dialed it back. The audio level was a little lower than I wanted, but very comfortable to listen to nonetheless. My FOH booth was about 3/4 of the way back so I'm sure it was good coverage. I'm not sure why I was getting feedback. He was well behind the mains and no monitors were powered up. The only thing I can figure is, the room was more reflective than I thought. Ceiling was acoustic tile, side wall mostly curtain with some windows exposed. Concrete on other wall, hard lino floor but there was a full house so lots of bodies to absorb the audio. Mains were running through a dbx 231 with an upside down smiley to enhance vocals.

I have had nothing but problems with lav mics.  I know they are nice and unobtrusive, but boy do they want to feedback!

I used them a few years ago in a wedding.  The bride and groom wanted them for their vows (outside wedding with around 500 people).  I got some decent volume out of them, but it was a real challenge.  Also, when we were doing the rehearsal, I found that when they got close to one another, it caused feedback right away.  I had to watch for the "Big Kiss" and drop the faders clean off before they got close ;)
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
 


Page created in 0.119 seconds with 23 queries.