Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hayden J. Nebus]

I have 2 of those and they work well, although the new KSM 8 capsules  are not my favorite.

I recently mixed a show with several Grammy winners and the president of ASCAP. We had 5x RF KSM8 and 2x RF KSM9 on ULX-D.

The KSM8 is good on closer, naturally thinner vocals. For people who have thicker voices, and performers who are used to really working the mic proximity when they belt, KSM8 felt weird, like a 58 would have done better.

SM 57/ SM 58 is a valid choice for reinforcing the acoustic output of anything, anytime, anywhere!

[Joseph D. Macry]

SM 57/ SM 58 is a valid choice for reinforcing the acoustic output of anything, anytime, anywhere!

Dunno... I once saw a high school stage that had 4 SM58s as hanging overhead mics. Didn't listen to a performance, but it sure seemed like a goofy choice.

[Tim Weaver]

Dunno... I once saw a high school stage that had 4 SM58s as hanging overhead mics. Didn't listen to a performance, but it sure seemed like a goofy choice.

Nah, thats just proper rigging of the front-line overheads! 

[Ron Hebbard]

Nah, that's just proper rigging of the front-line overheads! 

Where were they deploying their AKG CK9's and Sennheiser 815's?  (Possibly using them for hand-helds for LONG armed basketball players?)
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard
[Now where's the correct emoticon for this?] ;^)

[Tim Barber]

My first club gig had OM2's. The only use I found for them was on toms. Which they weren't too bad. Terrible on vocals though.

It's become my talkback mic. Works for that

[Bob Leonard]

Ask and you shall receive, Mac. ;-)

One of my hobbies is ham radio, Heil has a great reputation there too so I figured I couldn't go wrong with some of his mics as part of my locker. I bought a PR22, and a PR35- at different times and places, and I can't for the life of me get them to sound "right" without a lot of equalization, way more than I would guess any mic should need. With an SM58 I might pull down a little lower midrange but I really don't ever have to mess with them too much more than that. Whenever I've tried the PR35 it sounds so thin through the midrange and bright on the upper end. In order to get an meat to the midrange I'm pulling down highs and adding a bunch through the midrange which I don't love having to do. The PR22 will work reasonably well on instruments like mandos- they cut through pretty well on that mic but again its more the forward sound with the bright highs and lean midrange that makes it seem that way- I think. I don't know what I'm doing wrong or what everyone else is doing right. I'd love to have a couple of higher end boutique mics that I can use for a kick butt lead vocalist or something I really want to stand out but so far I haven't been loving these Heils I've tried.

I'm using an older SL24 desk, no external DSP or effects. I don't need to be right, I just want awesome results. If someone can tell me what I'm doing wrong or not seeing I'd love to give these mics another try.

I worked very hard with Bob to eliminate a number of issues with the PR-20, and then the PR-35. In the end I find it inconceivable that you find no bottom to the 35. The PR-20 is an entirely different animal, and the 22 is it's offspring built around a number of requests from people on this site and passed to Bob by myself. I still have a number of prototypes given to me by Bob which includes a PR-35 that will hold it's own on a loud stage with any mic in existence. If you're really having problems with a PR-22 then start with your EQ flat and work from there. Why? Because they aren't a 58, they don't have much in the way of a proximity effect, and the high end replication is something many people find very hard to work with.

I'll close by saying there is a mic made for every person and every purpose, so if you find one you like for a specific job, then stay with it. Just keep in mind that one mic won't do it all. For my personal use, when I get lazy I go back to an old SM-58 with a switch on it I've had for 20 years or longer, when I'm not lazy the PR-35 comes out, and when I feel adventurous I bring out a PR-22. In the end though it's a PR-35 90% of the time.

[Ryan C. Davis]

I worked very hard with Bob to eliminate a number of issues with the PR-20, and then the PR-35. In the end I find it inconceivable that you find no bottom to the 35. The PR-20 is an entirely different animal, and the 22 is it's offspring built around a number of requests from people on this site and passed to Bob by myself. I still have a number of prototypes given to me by Bob which includes a PR-35 that will hold it's own on a loud stage with any mic in existence. If you're really having problems with a PR-22 then start with your EQ flat and work from there. Why? Because they aren't a 58, they don't have much in the way of a proximity effect, and the high end replication is something many people find very hard to work with.

I'll close by saying there is a mic made for every person and every purpose, so if you find one you like for a specific job, then stay with it. Just keep in mind that one mic won't do it all. For my personal use, when I get lazy I go back to an old SM-58 with a switch on it I've had for 20 years or longer, when I'm not lazy the PR-35 comes out, and when I feel adventurous I bring out a PR-22. In the end though it's a PR-35 90% of the time.

I think maybe you should reread my post. I said nothing about bottom end- the midrange and highs have been my issue. I always start with a zeroed out eq, not sure why I would start with anything else.

I'm of the opinion that less is more. If I can use a mic that I have to do very little with by way of EQ and still sounds great with predictable results then why am I going to choose the other one that's apparently a science project every time it gets plugged in? If it's so damned outstanding why doesn't it sound better without an eq? Oh, right, to prove how good we are at using EQ's!

I have no doubt that Bob H is as nice as they come, and I truly have the utmost respect for him. I just haven't been that enthused about what I've experienced so far and no one has seemed to offer any worthwhile suggestion on what I'm doing wrong or others are doing right.

And Bob L- why don't you share some of your super duper trade secret eq curves or some kind of suggestion other than "start with a flat eq curve". Surely you must have some trick up your sleeve if you're using the PR35 90% of the time and when you're "not feeling lazy" which seems to suggest it's work for even yourself to make them sound right.

[Tim McCulloch]

I think maybe you should reread my post. I said nothing about bottom end- the midrange and highs have been my issue. I always start with a zeroed out eq, not sure why I would start with anything else.

I'm of the opinion that less is more. If I can use a mic that I have to do very little with by way of EQ and still sounds great with predictable results then why am I going to choose the other one that's apparently a science project every time it gets plugged in? If it's so damned outstanding why doesn't it sound better without an eq? Oh, right, to prove how good we are at using EQ's!

I have no doubt that Bob H is as nice as they come, and I truly have the utmost respect for him. I just haven't been that enthused about what I've experienced so far and no one has seemed to offer any worthwhile suggestion on what I'm doing wrong or others are doing right.

And Bob L- why don't you share some of your super duper trade secret eq curves or some kind of suggestion other than "start with a flat eq curve". Surely you must have some trick up your sleeve if you're using the PR35 90% of the time and when you're "not feeling lazy" which seems to suggest it's work for even yourself to make them sound right.

My mistake was assuming the PR-22 was what I wanted without auditioning the mic first.  That's 100% on me.

The place these might really shine is audience pick up for IEMs.

The HF doesn't sound forced but there's plenty of it - more than some "air" - but it's easy enough to dial back a shelving filter until the obnoxious thing goes away.  Depending on what that does to the rest of the signal, you might change to a parametric filter.  It's not rocket surgery and it's not significantly different than what you might do with another mic you've not used before.  This brings me to:

What does "sound right" mean?  To me it means that when I bring an input up in a tuned and aligned PA it doesn't have to put a "touch no knobs" smile on my face; what I need to hear is a familiar starting point and if that's what we've got we'll have a good day at the office.  What does "sound right" mean for you, and for the next guy or gal behind the console?  Probably a variety of opinion on that...  Sometimes you can just bring up the fader and some days, with the same mic, source and console, struggle to make it sound the way your memory says it should.

[Ryan C. Davis]

My mistake was assuming the PR-22 was what I wanted without auditioning the mic first.  That's 100% on me.

The place these might really shine is audience pick up for IEMs.

The HF doesn't sound forced but there's plenty of it - more than some "air" - but it's easy enough to dial back a shelving filter until the obnoxious thing goes away.  Depending on what that does to the rest of the signal, you might change to a parametric filter.  It's not rocket surgery and it's not significantly different than what you might do with another mic you've not used before.  This brings me to:

What does "sound right" mean?  To me it means that when I bring an input up in a tuned and aligned PA it doesn't have to put a "touch no knobs" smile on my face; what I need to hear is a familiar starting point and if that's what we've got we'll have a good day at the office.  What does "sound right" mean for you, and for the next guy or gal behind the console?  Probably a variety of opinion on that...  Sometimes you can just bring up the fader and some days, with the same mic, source and console, struggle to make it sound the way your memory says it should.

Thanks Tim, I'm following you.

I only have one 35 and one 22. So I think part of the issue is when I have the lead on the 35 and 4 other vocalists on 58's the 35 just sounds so completely different with way more highs and nowhere near enough midrange and it's hard to make the voices blend.

I guess this is the fun thing (and frustrating thing) about audio though. Everyone hears these things differently and everyone has an opinion. You learn what you like and what you don't. Just like me saying I prefer In-N-Out over 5 guys or a Martin over a Taylor.

[Chris Grimshaw]

FWIW, I always find SM58s (and 57s) sound fine. Rarely better than "fine", but rarely worse, too.

I have to say, though, to the original post: The guy there is using something that looks like a '58. Could be anything under the grille.

Chris

[ProSoundWeb Community]