Jordan Wolf wrote on Sat, 14 June 2008 09:10 |
I've got a small concert with a gospel singer tomorrow and I'm planning to use my PR-22 so long as it suits her voice. The only reason I might not is if she needs 2 mics (1 CS and 1 at the keyboard). I'll let everyone know how it pans out. |
John Chiara wrote on Sat, 14 June 2008 15:00 |
I had this with a keyboard player with 2 mics and he had a PR 22 and a Beta 58..interesting hearing the difference on the same singer/same stage/setup..etc. John |
Jordan Wolf wrote on Mon, 16 June 2008 01:09 |
Well, sadly, I decided not to use the PR-22 today. The artist is a great singer and utilizes a mic technique that plays on the proximity effect...so, that left the PR-22 out of the equation this time. Other than that, the little concert went fine. To Douglas: The PR-22 is a "fixed" version of the PR-20. It was found out that the PR-20 had a very big handling noise issue, so Bob (Heil) came up with a fix and, thus, the PR-22. |
Bob Leonard wrote on Mon, 16 June 2008 14:51 | ||
Jordan/douglas, The PR-20 has what should be considered excessive handling noise when hand held. If the mike is used in a stand the handling noise is negligible. The PR-20 is an excellent mic where it is stand mounted such as when used as a drum overhead, guitar cabinets, etc. |
Andy Peters wrote on Mon, 16 June 2008 19:47 | ||||
Stand mounting doesn't mitigate the problem of handling noise is fucked-up-yet-common situations like Club Congress here in Tucson. The subs are built into the stage in such a way that the whole downstage section (above the subs) resonates, and of course that's where the frontline vocal mics live. LF has a fun habit of traveling up the stand to the vocal mics. (And that's not the worst thing about that install ...) -a |
Douglas R. Allen wrote on Fri, 20 June 2008 15:04 |
I called Sweetwater to order 3 of the PR-22's and they told me they ran into problems and would not be selling the entire line of Heil Mic's anymore. Problems? Now I don't know if I should order any or not. Any heads up? |
Bob Leonard wrote on Tue, 24 June 2008 23:24 |
Also, I spoke to Bob Heil and Andy is correct. Sweetwater not carrying the Heil line is nothing more than a business decision. Quality is not an issue. |
Bob Leonard wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 09:45 |
I replaced a 57 on a Vibrolux with on of the retrofits. It's night and day, and sounds like a whole new amp. |
Dave Dermont wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 15:29 | ||
Geeze, with your head so far up Bob Heil's ass, it's a wonder you can still hear ANYTHING. Bob, you know I say that with love. ...but seriously folks (for you youngsters, this is a Joe Walsh reference) It pretty amazing how fast the Heil folks have responded to the marketplace. DD |
Andy Peters wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 12:33 |
Well, now the bad news ... I am convinced that the PR-22 pattern is wider than a standard cardioid. And that may be fine on non-box-like stages, but at Maxwell's (where the legend is bigger than the room) and with singers who are not all that strong (and depending on the song, intentionally so), there's just not enough side rejection (even if that side and back sound is "nice") to get adequate monitor levels. And this particular venue has the boxes rather close to the stage so there is some significant backwash off of the box' sides (JBL SR things), leading to a low-level low-mid "hummmmm." Now since I am not pig-headed enough to stick with something that is clearly not working, I grabbed a pair of the industry-standard obsolete ball microphones out of the club's kit, put 'em up, and fuck me up a rope: there was a marked improvement in GBF. Shure (that's a pun, folks), the tone from the mic wasn't as "good" but a few twiddles of Carey D's EQ knobs and I was able to get the singer to sound like, well, the singer. He was happy, I was happy, and probably most important, the 250 people who waited 17 years to see this band again were happy. So I will stick with the SM58 for tonight, mainly because it's working, and I'll try out the PR-22s again on Friday outdoors on a big stage, where I expect they'll do well. But for smaller stages where things tend to be loud, a mic with a tighter pattern is necessary. Besides, you paid for the channel-strip tone controls and there's no shame in, you know, actually using them. Bob, if you're reading this: gimme a PR-25 with a supercardioid pattern. -a PS: I have audio files of the singer's voice through the PR-22 and through the SM58, and once I sort it all out, I'll post snippets. |
Mark Hadman wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 13:11 |
Jah Wobble's Chinese Dub project was in town recently. As H.E. I had my new PR-22 with me, and the B.E. was happy to give it a spin because he'd heard good things. For sound check we set up the PR-22 and a Beta 57a at the center vocal position and let vocalist Claire have the option of using either one. After switching back and forth a few times, the B.E. and I agreed that the 22 had the edge in terms of clarity, but Claire thought that the B57a sounded clearer through the monitors and so we moved the 22 aside for Jah Wobble to use. In the 22's defence, the monitors were more or less EQ'd to sound good with a Shure, and Claire, like most singers, has been using Shures for years. Later on in the same sound check it became apparent that the 22 was amplifying large amounts of rumble from people moving around on the stage, and since dancing was a central part of the show we reluctantly swapped the 22 out for another B57a. Having briefly A/B'd the two mics myself at home I have to say that the 22 does seem to have quite a lot of handling noise compared to a B57a. I intend to make a more scientific comparison next time I have a mixer and recorder set up and a spare half hour. On a more positive note, as a B.E. myself I've taken to using the 22 as a backing vocal mic for our drummer*. With an SM58 or similar his voice requires a deep cut at 200Hz (he always asks for that cut in his monitors too), but I can run the 22 more or less flat, with maybe a little cut at 5K so as to not stand out too much from the front-line SM58s! This is a guy who's so sociable that he's generally lost most of his voice by the second day of a festival weekend, so having that clarity is important. The next step may be to try pointing the 22 somewhat downwards, allowing it double up as the drum overhead mic. More to follow. * Re my previous post - we've also tried it on snare top as suggested and it was fine and snappy, although for that particular gig I was mixing from backstage (yep you heard right) so didn't get much chance to appreciate the finer details. |
Mark Hadman wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 15:11 |
......This is a guy who's so sociable that he's generally lost most of his voice by the second day of a festival weekend, so having that clarity is important. |
Dave Dermont wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 15:29 | ||
Geeze, with your head so far up Bob Heil's ass, it's a wonder you can still hear ANYTHING. Bob, you know I say that with love. ...but seriously folks (for you youngsters, this is a Joe Walsh reference) It pretty amazing how fast the Heil folks have responded to the marketplace. DD |
Bob Leonard wrote on Thu, 21 August 2008 00:10 | ||||
Dave / Andy, I have been keeping Bob up to date with the concerns of the masses, and I can assure you he listens to what you have to say. Oh, by the way, if there's anything else on the wish list let me know before Friday. He's meeting me for dinner Friday night, so I'll pass it along then. |
Bob Leonard wrote on Wed, 20 August 2008 21:10 |
Oh, by the way, if there's anything else on the wish list let me know before Friday. He's meeting me for dinner Friday night, so I'll pass it along then. |
Bob Leonard wrote on Fri, 22 August 2008 15:02 |
Just a quick point. There are 50 touring acts using the Heils now representing all types of genre, from Joan Baez to the Eagles. There aren't any complaints about wash, or if there are I have not heard about them yet. I wonder what they're using as a formula for success..... Guess I'll have to find out tonight. |
Quote: |
My first thought, having tested most of the mics mentioned against the Heils, proved to me the Heils are more sensitive, more articulate, and have a much wider frequency response than the mics mentioned. You're definitely going to hear sound you have not heard in the past. |
Quote: |
Have you thought to stop and ask yourself why the GBF of the Heils is greater than other mics, |
Andy Peters wrote on Fri, 22 August 2008 18:49 | ||||||
Umm, well, for starters ... could the formula simply be that lots of these bands are on IEMs, or have plexi shields in front of the drums, or the amps are "far enough" from the vocal position to not be a problem? IOW, strictly-controlled stage volume? I don't expect Joan Baez to have rock-n-roll stage volumes.
And all of that is true ... re-read my initia post in this thread where I mention that my wife said "that one (PR22) sounds like you, and the other one (SM58) sounds like you're speaking through a microphone."
IT IS NOT. NO EFFIN' WAY. Let me clarify: I can get usable GBF. But GBF is a separate issue from stage wash. So when a musician tells me, "I'm getting a lot of stage sound in my wedge and it just sounds loud up here," that's a problem. And when I push up a vocal in the house and get lots of guitar amp as a bonus, that's a problem. So I'd rather deal with the "sonic imperfections" of a supercardioid mic. -a (edit: clarification.) |
Bob Leonard wrote on Fri, 22 August 2008 15:02 |
Andy, ... You are correct in all that you have stated... |
bo putnam wrote on Wed, 27 August 2008 20:47 | ||
Yup. I too have these experiences with PR22's, and have compared notes with Andy. Like others here, we've had issues when we take the stage and I slip in a few PR22's on vocals. With the PR22's I pretty much have bliss at FOH, but the monitorguy suddenly develops new sweat beads - GBF is a bit trickier than with the conventional SM58's. My lead vocal/guitar likes a really hot mix, which exacerbates the problem, and with the PR22 4kHz (and its harmonics to a lesser degree) typically presents a problem. When I'm working foldback I prepare for it, but this invariably catches the festival guys - takes a bit more attention to get right. At some events, if time is slipping I just skip using any of my mics, even tho' I'd prefer to be working the PR22's. I have noticed stage wash too, although my hassle with it seems dependent on ceiling height. And, my guitar player is so loud, any mic gets washed pretty bad. All-in-all, I really like the PR22's and use them whenever I can. They are different than SM58's, but we should expect that. |
Dick Rees wrote on Thu, 28 August 2008 17:57 |
While I have not yet had the opportunity to use the Heil mics in a live sound application I did take the time to go to the nearest GC and A/B them with some "industry standard" mics which I have used. All I could do was listen to the various mics soloed into headphones. The "reach" of the Heil dynamics was much more akin to that of a condenser in that I could hear clearly WAY into the remote recesses of the store....with incredible fidelity. This leads me to expect to need to address some of the issues raised here regarding stage wash and GBF. That is, when I finally get them in the budget....which I intend to do. I expect the same adjustments that I've had to make in using the AT Artist Elite series premium vocal mics. |
Winston Gamble wrote on Fri, 29 August 2008 14:21 | ||
We have a couple of different AE series mics on our front line. I don't find myself making many adjustments, what is it you're finding you need to change? Just curious. I picked up a PR22 for our lead singer/rhythm guitar/harmonica player for use on her harmonica. The main driver was for its lack of proximity effect. I too have noticed a wider pattern on it, but for our application that is working mostly to my advantage. I will echo the comment that the mic sounds the most like the actual voice of whoever gets on it. When our other lead singer first tried it out we all commented on how much it sounded like her. Which was exactly what she didn't like about it. She prefers the thicker or smoky sound of her voice with her AT AE series mic. Winston. |
Dick Rees wrote on Fri, 29 August 2008 13:32 |
Running them a little cool on the input so as to try to tighten up the pattern a bit |
Andy Peters wrote on Fri, 29 August 2008 15:54 | ||
ummmm, no. -a |
Dick Rees wrote on Fri, 29 August 2008 16:32 |
Running them a little cool on the input so as to try to tighten up the pattern a bit and: |
Mac Kerr wrote on Fri, 29 August 2008 17:18 | ||
Andy beat me to it, but, HUH? How does level effect the pattern? Mac |
Dick Rees wrote on Fri, 29 August 2008 18:39 |
Guys. It looks like simultaneous posting again. I already tried to explain in a reply to Andy that I did not expect the pattern to change. And Bob is correct. What I was trying to do by running the mic less sensitive was to tone down the wash. It seems to me to be of benefit, so I do it. Again let me state that I'm doing styles of music that are probably more dynamic and less in your face than straight out rock, so I may notice the small differences more. If I want a different pattern, I use a different mic. Now back to your regularly scheduled program.....the PR22. |
Mac Kerr wrote on Fri, 29 August 2008 17:49 | ||
It doesn't matter what type of music it is. Reducing the level reduces the leakage the same amount it reduces the sound you are trying to reproduce. There is no change in the relationship of unwanted wash to wanted direct sound. What changes the ratio is singing louder into the mic, or singing closer to the mic. Mac |
Dick Rees wrote on Fri, 29 August 2008 18:39 |
Of course you are correct. The relationship between wash and desired sound would not actually change. Neither would the pattern. It's most likely a perception (or misperception) on my part. That's just how I think of it and yet it seems to me to make a small difference in the mix. Call it superstition, I guess. I was just answering Caleb's question about how I approached it differently from, say, an SM58. It's what I do....right or wrong. He asked, I replied. It's sort of my own "vertical frequency split", I guess. |
Bob Leonard wrote on Fri, 29 August 2008 15:27 | ||||
I think, but could be wrong, that what Dick was trying to convey, is that less channel gain can and usually does eliminate a certain amount of wash, but only because of reduced sensitivity. The pattern, cardioid (as in heart shaped) remains the same but the size (effective area) is reduced. |
Quote: |
What I found strange, and if I get some time I'll run some plots, is that the PR-20 has slightly better off axis (45 degree) rejection than the PR-22. |
Andy Peters wrote on Sat, 30 August 2008 14:25 | ||||||||
EXCEPT THAT ... Gain is gain. If you have an output SPL requirement of x dB, it doesn't matter whether you run the preamp cold and push the faders up, or whether you run the preamp hot and turn the faders down to get to that level ... you have the same electrical gain, and the same pattern. EXACTLY the same. The amount of wash is NOT reduced by operating as Dick advocates. I don't know how these foggy notions get started. (One could argue, and I will, that running the input cold and getting gain in the faders or somewhere else later in the signal chain degrades S/N.)
I'd like to see those plots, and do a plot of an SM58 while you're at it. -a |
Andy Peters wrote on Sat, 30 August 2008 13:25 | ||||||
EXCEPT THAT ... Gain is gain. If you have an output SPL requirement of x dB, it doesn't matter whether you run the preamp cold and push the faders up, or whether you run the preamp hot and turn the faders down to get to that level ... you have the same electrical gain, and the same pattern. EXACTLY the same. The amount of wash is NOT reduced by operating as Dick advocates. I don't know how these foggy notions get started. (One could argue, and I will, that running the input cold and getting gain in the faders or somewhere else later in the signal chain degrades S/N.)-a |
SteveKirby wrote on Sat, 01 November 2008 01:37 |
Maybe in a very quiet setting the PR20 would sound good. Next time she does Yoshi's (which has a very dead stage) I'll suggest she try asking for one at soundcheck. |
"Krazy" Karl Bader wrote on Fri, 02 January 2009 10:57 |
http://www.proaudioreview.com/article/16734 Is the review I did for Pro Audio Review magazine... As you can see, I liked it! Thanks, Karl |
Bob Leonard wrote on Fri, 02 January 2009 15:23 |
I have also compared the 22 to an RE-20 and found the RE-20 to sound muddy by comparison. |
Dave Dermont wrote on Fri, 02 January 2009 18:45 | ||
Bob, Was it the same rusty old piece-of-crap RE20 Bob was using in his trade show booth the first time I saw his mics? Mr. Heil really turned me off was when he used the term "Variable-D bullshit" to describe the RE20. I kinda know what Variable-D is, and I am pretty sure it's not bullshit. DD |
"Krazy" Karl Bader wrote on Fri, 02 January 2009 15:27 |
Bob, What may I ask made you feel puzzled? Maybe I can clarify, and plus I would always like to do some self improvement. Karl |
Bob Leonard wrote on Fri, 02 January 2009 21:53 |
You have to admit though, the extra grills, case and windscreen are a definate (sic) bonus. |
Andy Peters wrote on Sat, 29 November 2008 23:12 |
Tonight at the ol' Gallery we had something other than the usual two-gtrs/bass/drums rock: My Brightest Diamond and Clare and the Reasons. Ah, quiet stuff, no backline noise ... let's try the PR-22 here on vox. Now both Shara (MBD) and Clare brought Beta58As but agreed to try the PR-22. Shara has an amazing voice and the mic worked well enough for her. Clare, however, sings so quietly that I offered her five bucks to sing louder. (She said she needed at least $7.) And I had the gain cranked and was not getting enough voice before various feedback birdies appeared. Clearly the PR-22 was not working so we put up the Beta58A and voila ... we are good to go. -a |
Andy Peters wrote on Sat, 29 November 2008 23:12 |
I'm sure that I could've hacked the EQ to make the PR-22 work but I thought the whole point was to avoid doing that. The mic swap was the right thing to do. PR-22 is a cracking good snare drum mic, though. -a |
Bob Leonard wrote on Fri, 02 January 2009 23:41 |
I'm not saying the RE20 isn't a great mic, the last one I used just seemed to be dull. |
Adam Cooke wrote on Fri, 23 January 2009 16:12 | ||
You're right, the RE20 isn't particularly bright. I suspect that's why EV made the RE27. It's essentially a modernized RE20 with extended high frequency response, higher sensitivity, and more EQ switches. I wonder how it would compare to the Heil microphones? |
Robert Alan wrote on Sun, 18 January 2009 20:32 |
with dynamic mic technology progressing quite a bit there seems to be a number of dynamics on the market that are clamiming condenser like audio quality such as the AKG D7, Telefunken M-80, Equation Audio DS-V10, DS-V11....now maybe some or even all may not be as pristine as the heils report to be but they may address the clarity vs off axis rejection balance a little better? |
Caleb Dick wrote on Thu, 14 May 2009 10:00 |
Very cool. Now how long until there is a PR35 UT? |
Robert Alan wrote on Fri, 15 May 2009 01:15 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
with the heils out the equation due to wash with anything moderately loud behind the singer i imagine the next best thing dynamic wise is gonna be the telefunken M80 (if it really is much more manageable then the heils) the only thing is that, here at least in the uk, they are pretty expensive. about Post by: Bob Leonard on May 15, 2009, 08:00:50 AM
|