Print

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

[Andy Peters]

Jeff Ekstrand wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 10:54

Also, there really is no SM58"a" or SM75"a", the "A" on the Beta58A is noting that it is a hypercardioid microphone. If you look at the Beta87 series, the "A" model is hypercardioid, and the "C" version is regular cardioid. In the SM series of microphones, there are only cardioid versions. Lastly on this topic, there really are no other microphones in Shure's lineup that have both an "A" and "C" model beside the Beta87. If the SM58 were to have a letter, I would assume it would be "C" as it has a cardioid polar pattern.

Your statement about the "A" on the Beta58A is not correct.

First, the SM57 and SM58 are both standard cardioid mics.

Once upon a time (a dozen years ago or so), Shure introduced the original Beta series mics, including the Beta57 and the Beta58. The intent was to make supercardioid versions of the old standbys. Unfortunately, the new mics didn't sound all that great in general, and in particular the mics (whether the capsule or the transformer, I dunno) easily overloaded with even moderate-throated singers. While Shure didn't exactly admit the mics weren't any good, they were quietly discontinued. The Beta57A and Beta58A were introduced as the supercardioid versions of the old standbys. (The Beta52 kick-drum mic was also replaced by the Beta52A; that mic had its own issues.)

So, no, "A" does not mean "supercardioid." It simply means "Revision A." The moniker "Beta" indicates supercardioid.

Now, about the Beta87 mics. Yes, there was a supercardioid Beta87 mic as part of the original Beta series. Then with the refresh of the product line, the Beta87A was introduced. (I don't know how the Beta87 differs from the Beta87A as I've never heard one.)  Now some of Shure's Market Research showed that some Beta87A users who also used IEMs thought that the pattern was too narrow and "isolating," they introduced the Beta87C, and in this case, "C" does mean "cardioid."

And yes, there is a Shure SM87A. And because I told you that the "A" doesn't mean supercardioid, well, the SM87A is a supercardioid, unlike the rest of the SM line. It's basically a supercardioid version of the SM86 handheld vocal condenser.

Confused yet?

-a

[Shad Hall]

Andy Peters wrote on Wed, 30 July 2008 02:30

Jeff Ekstrand wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 10:54 Also, there really is no SM58"a" or SM75"a", the "A" on the Beta58A is noting that it is a hypercardioid microphone. If you look at the Beta87 series, the "A" model is hypercardioid, and the "C" version is regular cardioid. In the SM series of microphones, there are only cardioid versions. Lastly on this topic, there really are no other microphones in Shure's lineup that have both an "A" and "C" model beside the Beta87. If the SM58 were to have a letter, I would assume it would be "C" as it has a cardioid polar pattern. Your statement about the "A" on the Beta58A is not correct. First, the SM57 and SM58 are both standard cardioid mics. Once upon a time (a dozen years ago or so), Shure introduced the original Beta series mics, including the Beta57 and the Beta58. The intent was to make supercardioid versions of the old standbys. Unfortunately, the new mics didn't sound all that great in general, and in particular the mics (whether the capsule or the transformer, I dunno) easily overloaded with even moderate-throated singers. While Shure didn't exactly admit the mics weren't any good, they were quietly discontinued. The Beta57A and Beta58A were introduced as the supercardioid versions of the old standbys. (The Beta52 kick-drum mic was also replaced by the Beta52A; that mic had its own issues.) So, no, "A" does not mean "supercardioid." It simply means "Revision A." The moniker "Beta" indicates supercardioid. Now, about the Beta87 mics. Yes, there was a supercardioid Beta87 mic as part of the original Beta series. Then with the refresh of the product line, the Beta87A was introduced. (I don't know how the Beta87 differs from the Beta87A as I've never heard one.)  Now some of Shure's Market Research showed that some Beta87A users who also used IEMs thought that the pattern was too narrow and "isolating," they introduced the Beta87C, and in this case, "C" does mean "cardioid." And yes, there is a Shure SM87A. And because I told you that the "A" doesn't mean supercardioid, well, the SM87A is a supercardioid, unlike the rest of the SM line. It's basically a supercardioid version of the SM86 handheld vocal condenser. Confused yet? -a

The one aspect of these forums and my fellow members is that I can get everyone's feedback unlike talking to "John" on the phone and only getting one single piece of opinion/input and then having to determine the validity of his comments.

I think I follow you, though future questions will prove or disprove this.

Have you personally used the SM58 and the Beta58A? What are your thoughts on them?  I'm reading every review I can find and thus far, the Beta58A's seem to be the preferred mic.

Thanks,
Shad

[Kent Thompson]

David kind of touched on this but, you do realize you have a 24 channel mixer and only a 16 channel snake. If your not going to have a 24 channel snake you might as well downsize your mixer to 16 channels.

[Shad Hall]

Kent Thompson wrote on Wed, 30 July 2008 17:29

David kind of touched on this but, you do realize you have a 24 channel mixer and only a 16 channel snake. If your not going to have a 24 channel snake you might as well downsize your mixer to 16 channels.

Shad Hall

(From post #126991 above) "There is a ProCo StageMaster 16/4 TRS snake on the stage right now, so adding another 16/4 will work just fine."

=)

[Andy Peters]

Shad Hall wrote on Wed, 30 July 2008 13:34

Have you personally used the SM58 and the Beta58A? What are your thoughts on them?

Ummmm, yeah, seeing as how they are literally the two most popular and common professional handheld vocal mics.

Quote:

I'm reading every review I can find and thus far, the Beta58A's seem to be the preferred mic.

Given my druthers, I wouldn't use either of them. Both have the signature "presence peak" which can make some voices sound really pretty nasal, and the Beta sounds worse to me in that regard. The Beta58A is better in some situations where you need more gain-before-feedback.

Of course you'll ask, "what would you use instead?"

For some voices, the Shure Beta57A is excellent. I like the EV 767 and the Audix OM5 too. A friend of mine gets excellent results with the Sennheiser 935.  If your budget allows, you really can't beat the Beyerdynamic M69 and M88. Others have gotten excellent results from the Heil PR-35.

-a

[Justin Rygel]

David Sumrall wrote on Wed, 30 July 2008 00:38

Have you considered a little digital desk like a litle o1vcm or something. Not as many inputs as your plan but it would have more things built into the desk like reverb, compressors, and recall of settings etc. Only 12 mic pre's in those 16 channels. It would definitely be a step up from what you have in channel count now but might not be enough later on.

Th O1V96 can be easily upgraded to 28 inputs in the future, and a used V2 is not a lot more that what was already budgeted for the A+H board.  A new VCM will run about $1800.  If you can convince yourself and your budget comittee that this is right for your church, I strongly recommend going digital, as you will instantly have A LOT more control of your sound, with better EQ, dynamics, and effects built in to the board.  If you either know how to use this stuff already or are willing to learn, you can really grow into the capabilities of an O1V96 (V2 or the current VCM), if this is not the case, then it is probably better to stick with a simpler board, like the A+H PA, or ZED series.

Also look at www.northernsound.net for good prices, I usually find they tend to be a bit lower than full compass.

I'm a big fan of QSC RMX amps for this type of application, they're a very good value for the money and are very reliable.

Any time anyone asks about snakes and cables, I have to take the chance to plug www.audiopile.net, very good prices on decent products and excellent service.

I've nevery liked Beta58s myself, I prefer Audix OM series mics (OM2, OM5, and OM7 depending on application).  Of course, I always have some SM58s around . . .

If you decide to upgrade speakers, consider going powered, you'll end up with a simpler, easier to use system.  I've been pretty impressed with the QSC HPR122i.  It looks like two would cover your room.  They are black, look very nice, and they are pole mountable, so you could put the one on the left side of the room on a pole and get it up higher.  Getting the speakers up above people's heads helps to even the coverage from front to back.  For that matter, you might be able to do that with your current speakers.  You say the speakers you have sound good, but what is your point of reference?  I am not saying that the sound is bad, I've never heard it, just that it is possible your room could sound much better.  You might be able to rent some nicer speakers to test this hypothesis, or go to another local church and see what their building sounds like.

[Shad Hall]

Justin Rygel wrote on Wed, 30 July 2008 19:14

David Sumrall wrote on Wed, 30 July 2008 00:38 Have you considered a little digital desk like a litle o1vcm or something. Not as many inputs as your plan but it would have more things built into the desk like reverb, compressors, and recall of settings etc. Only 12 mic pre's in those 16 channels. It would definitely be a step up from what you have in channel count now but might not be enough later on. Th O1V96 can be easily upgraded to 28 inputs in the future, and a used V2 is not a lot more that what was already budgeted for the A+H board.  A new VCM will run about $1800.  If you can convince yourself and your budget comittee that this is right for your church, I strongly recommend going digital, as you will instantly have A LOT more control of your sound, with better EQ, dynamics, and effects built in to the board.  If you either know how to use this stuff already or are willing to learn, you can really grow into the capabilities of an O1V96 (V2 or the current VCM), if this is not the case, then it is probably better to stick with a simpler board, like the A+H PA, or ZED series. Also look at www.northernsound.net for good prices, I usually find they tend to be a bit lower than full compass. I'm a big fan of QSC RMX amps for this type of application, they're a very good value for the money and are very reliable. Any time anyone asks about snakes and cables, I have to take the chance to plug www.audiopile.net, very good prices on decent products and excellent service. I've nevery liked Beta58s myself, I prefer Audix OM series mics (OM2, OM5, and OM7 depending on application).  Of course, I always have some SM58s around . . . If you decide to upgrade speakers, consider going powered, you'll end up with a simpler, easier to use system.  I've been pretty impressed with the QSC HPR122i.  It looks like two would cover your room.  They are black, look very nice, and they are pole mountable, so you could put the one on the left side of the room on a pole and get it up higher.  Getting the speakers up above people's heads helps to even the coverage from front to back.  For that matter, you might be able to do that with your current speakers.  You say the speakers you have sound good, but what is your point of reference?  I am not saying that the sound is bad, I've never heard it, just that it is possible your room could sound much better.  You might be able to rent some nicer speakers to test this hypothesis, or go to another local church and see what their building sounds like.

Thanks for the in depth post.

The digital mixer board you mentioned is a discontinued item? No matter, but I was surprised to see the digital window as a green-screen. It reminds me of hand-held video games from the early 90's. Hey, but that's nothing against your suggestion. I'm just surprised that it's not full color screen. and why can't it be based on Windows' Technology so it would crash during a show? I should eMail MS and ask them why they  haven't got their hands into the music recording world yet. Alright, I'll be serious again. I really do not having any firm base/theory as why I should or should not go digital. I could throw out some ideas, but I know nothing of the digital world when it comes to mixer boards.  I would like to get some more feed back on this topic from others as well. I could say, our room is small or we have a small crowd of max 100 people, but neither one of those points necessarily have any weight over going digital or not. I would love to have more control over individual voices, which probably is possible with the digital mixer.

I realize that I'm just rambling here, but it will at least give you an idea of where we are.

If we're going to be bringing in the state-of-the-art system, then we might as well be talking $7k area and then should redo the entire interior design, knock out a wall behind the sound booth and extend the room.  Now, let me quickly say, I agree $7k is chump-change for church sound systems in many cases, but 7 becomes 10 which becomes 15 and with tax $20k for the additional room.    I was trying to keep everything around $3k range give-or-take $500. I am not bent on this figure, but am trying to stay near it if I hope to have success with my proposal.

I book-marked the sites you mentioned.

You suggested using powered speakers and how it would be "simpler"; can you explain how it would simplify things?

Thanks again for the reply,
Shad

[Shad Hall]

This post is an update of the original post in this thread as things have changed since talking with all of you.

(The room is about 30' x 50'.)

Here is the system that I've updated for your feedback.

============================================================ ===
1. Mixer Board: $1299
  Allen & Heath PA28

2. Amp: $499
  Crown XTi 1000
 
3. Cable Snake: $499
  Horizon Concert Series 150' 16-Channel/4-Return Snake

4. Voice Mic's: $159
  Shure SM58A

5. Instrument Mic's: $139
  Shure SM57A


Project Totals:
$2300 (Mixer, Amp, Snake)
$640 (SM58A Mics x4)
$420 (SM57A Mics x3)

--------------------
$3360 Sub Total
$222 Tax (7.75%)

--------------------
$3620 Grand Total
============================================================ ===


Notes:
Mixer:
I think the A&H PA28 is a great model selection for us and what we're trying to do. One of the great features about it, unlike its Yamaha (analog) competitor, is that IF a channel goes bad, only it has to be sent in rather than the entire board. I can't imagine shipping costs for the Yamaha board! *gasp*

Amp:
Everyone seems to agree that this is a good amp.

Snake:
It seems the Horizon snakes are the way to go at this time.

Mic's:
pending*

Place of purchasing has yet to be decided.

[Gary Creely]

Quote:

If we're going to be bringing in the state-of-the-art system, then we might as well be talking $7k area and then should redo the entire interior design, knock out a wall behind the sound booth and extend the room.  Now, let me quickly say, I agree $7k is chump-change for church sound systems in many cases, but 7 becomes 10 which becomes 15 and with tax $20k for the additional room.    I was trying to keep everything around $3k range give-or-take $500. I am not bent on this figure, but am trying to stay near it if I hope to have success with my proposal. I book-marked the sites you mentioned. You suggested using powered speakers and how it would be "simpler"; can you explain how it would simplify things? Thanks again for the reply, Shad

The 7k area would not be state of the art, it would be an economy job. In a room that size state of the art might be 80k. You do not need state of the art, but realize you are trying to feed the multitude on one boys lunch. A single JBL VP speaker would cost 3k. I only say that to say 7k is no pie in the sky number.

I have found volunteer/lay people are reluctant to ask for what they need when it comes to sound system needs. I would suggest putting together what it would take to do this right, and dream a little- if they say no than ask what the church can afford. Don't under estimate the possibilities.

As mentioned before you are a little high on the prices (good choice of snake), but you missed a lot of odds and ends that add up. -For instance mic cables.

I will answer you question about powered speakers- They are simpler because the are far more plug and play, and can get away better with-out processing.

[Shad Hall]

Hi,

This thread has been a great thread and I've learned a lot. Thank you everyone for your support, patience and input thus far. There has been many topics and sub topics chased and some of them are still pending, which I hope to mention in this post.

Okay, first of all, regarding microphones, there have been much input and many suggestions, so I've created a poll, narrow though it may be, for your input as to which mic would be the best all around mic for us.

Secondly, new mic cables were mentioned as a necessity.

Quote:

So new mic cables are a must? Suggest a brand, but more importantly, a model. I know that Monster Cables are popular, but there are many different models and thus also pricing scenarios.

As for speaker selections, there are a million out there. Justin brought up a good point inquiring what I was comparing the current house speakers to in order to determine their quality. Nothing. And yes, there are going to be better speakers I think that we will be able to consider later, [but even as I make this statement, I don't agree with it, because everything should be bought at the same time].  I think I mentioned in an earlier post that the stage monitors were Community DnD12 150w 8ohm (150 RMS / 375 Program / 750 Peak). I like these speakers and wonder if we can just use these for the house speakers as well?

Thanks,
Shad

P.s. I've been reading the thread, "Need advice on overhauling old system" trying to learn as much as I can.

[ProSoundWeb Community]