Post by: Robert Alan on March 22, 2010, 03:17:19 PM
its funny because "cuts through the mix" is a statement that is printed on just about every spec. sheet of every mic out there (along with exceptional feed back rejection, smooth, wide frequency response.....etc.)and yet some do indeed naturally do a much better job than others in this regard. im not sure if presence, articulation or just out right mid frequency boosts all amount to the same thing in terms of "cut" but i have my assumptions of the mics that will be mentioned (though im not going to say haha!)
Post by: Jonathan Wiegratz on March 22, 2010, 03:29:59 PM
They definitely cut through better than our Beta87's, which need a little EQ help to get just right.
Post by: Art Welter on March 22, 2010, 03:31:08 PM
| Robert Alan wrote on Mon, 22 March 2010 13:17 |
i know its not generally a preferred trait by most sound guys out there (as its generally a preference to EQ ones own settings for optimal sound with reference to the system being used, vocal in question, music being played etc.) but what are your top 3 vocal mics, that out the box naturally cut through a very loud, dense mix without having to add much/any EQ? its funny because "cuts through the mix" is a statement that is printed on just about every spec. sheet of every mic out there (along with exceptional feed back rejection, smooth, wide frequency response.....etc.)and yet some do indeed naturally do a much better job than others in this regard. im not sure if presence, articulation or just out right mid frequency boosts all amount to the same thing in terms of "cut" but i have my assumptions of the mics that will be mentioned (though im not going to say haha!) |
The vocal “cuts through the mix”, not the microphone.
Carving a hole for the vocal depends on the spectral content of the music.
That said, most vocal microphones have a built in presence peak somewhere between 4-8 K.
What frequency do you find most knife like?
One man’s “cut” is another man’s “icepick”.
One mans’ “mud” is another man’s “beef”.
1) Beta 58A
2) SM 58
3) EV PL 80
10) Audix OM 7
Art Welter
Post by: Scott Smith on March 22, 2010, 04:12:23 PM
| Art Welter wrote on Mon, 22 March 2010 15:31 |
One man’s “cut” is another man’s “icepick”. One mans’ “mud” is another man’s “beef”. |
+1! That is EXCELLENT!!
Post by: Dick Rees on March 22, 2010, 04:48:52 PM
#1.......a well tuned PA of capable size
#2.......a decent band
#3.......an operator with decent ears and experience
(and way down the list)
#whatever.......your favorite vocal mic
Edit:
As I've said before, you can't EQ stage wash. If there's more stage/monitor sound than PA sound, all bets are off.
Post by: Jason Ellis on March 22, 2010, 05:02:31 PM
Is the volume appropriate to the music/venue
if not - am I out of gas i.e. not enough rig for the gig...
if so - hrmm not enough vocals - but I've got plenty of signal in and the fader is near unity... perhaps the band is too loud - pull down the "whole band" VCA...ahh vocals now cut through...
I don't pick vocal mics based on cut - I pick based on how well they compliment the voice...
Post by: Tyler Payne on March 22, 2010, 05:30:36 PM
| Quote: |
Jason Ellis: Is the volume appropriate to the music/venue if not - am I out of gas i.e. not enough rig for the gig... |
+1!
If you're having trouble with vocals "cutting through", doing exactly what Jason mentioned is the way to go. Typically I tend to handle vocals by mixing them slightly over everything else to taste, excepting instrumental solos or what have you. Obviously you can solve the source of the problem by turning up the amps, or adding more power altogether until you're able to achieve the proper "headroom" for your vocals.
-Payne
Post by: Tim Weaver on March 22, 2010, 05:58:06 PM
2. SM58
3. Anything else that happens to be there to use.
The engineer decides how much vocal there is in the mix, not the microphone. Next time you are having trouble hearing the vocals, try this novel approach. Turn everything else down.
Post by: Chris Diener on March 22, 2010, 06:25:53 PM
The engineer decides how much vocal there is in the mix, not the microphone. Next time you are having trouble hearing the vocals, try this novel approach. Turn everything else down.[/quote]
+1
On a monthly basis when I am playing and have no control (other than to b*tch about it) I have to deal with "can't you sing louder?" directed at me from less than experienced guys running the p.a. Generally those systems are optimized and mixed for annoyingly loud bass guitar and kick drum,...priorities I guess. Sounds great during breaks while he DJs though. ha
For my voice I find that an Audix OM5 will add enough mids/upper mids to make my voice sound louder. I don't particularly like the sound, but it is an easy fix when up against a loud stage.
Post by: Robert Alan on March 22, 2010, 06:57:19 PM
i remember some years back when i bought my first mics. singing with a loud heavy metal band where "lets turn down a little shall we?" lasted all of about two seconds any time it was mentioned. i had a sennheiser e845 and a then got a beta58. now IMO the e845 is a "better" mic, sounds smoother, less grainy, more natural etc on close inspection. however i remember the first time i plugged in the B58 and instantly i could hear the vocal that bit more, making my job that bit easier as a vocalist.
i also agree that what makes a vocal stand out from the mix is kind of a matter of opinion/taste. as i said, is it a general presence ?, articulation ?, extra boosted mids ? or sheer volume difference ?
im guessing the answer depends on what you like/want to hear.
i guess its certainly possible for a vocal to sound present, up front, cut through the mix....... without stabbing the eardrums
just as its possible for the vocal to cut through and sound like crap. an example of that would be the last time i saw Judas Preist live. i could hear the vocal above the din of marshalls etc. but it sounded like it was only about two frequencies bands worth haha
Post by: Tony "T" Tissot on March 22, 2010, 07:01:20 PM
Closest to the pin (highest SPL at the element) wins.
The OM7 and Telefunken M80 work on really loud stages. But mainly because the element is (apparently) closer. They sound great most of the time, but are a problem for folks that have not "practiced" singing into them. They won't help a no-pipes singer on a loud stage.
- But the louder the stage - the more clueless the performer - and the less likely I am to bring out anything other than my cheapest, smelly, bent-up mics. So they get a 58.
Post by: Robert Alan on March 22, 2010, 07:04:10 PM
| Dick Rees wrote on Mon, 22 March 2010 20:48 |
As I've said before, you can't EQ stage wash. If there's more stage/monitor sound than PA sound, all bets are off. |
i guess but then shouldnt everyone just use an OM7, get a really good EQ setup to shape exacly as wanted and super glue the grille to the singers top lip so that they have no choice but to eat the bloody mic!
better still make them swallow a lav. mind you then you might start getting issues where the vocal wont cut through the mix because of too much heartbeat wash!
Post by: Caleb Dick on March 22, 2010, 07:46:31 PM
| Robert Alan wrote on Mon, 22 March 2010 16:04 | ||
i guess but then shouldnt everyone just use an OM7, get a really good EQ setup to shape exacly as wanted and super glue the grille to the singers top lip so that they have no choice but to eat the bloody mic! better still make them swallow a lav. mind you then you might start getting issues where the vocal wont cut through the mix because of too much heartbeat wash! |
Or cut the stage wash, get a great sounding mic, and sing loud directly into it. The reasons for low stage wash are strong; the reasons against seem to be childish egos in the way.
Caleb
Post by: RYAN LOUDMUSIC JENKINS on March 22, 2010, 08:05:47 PM
| Tim Weaver wrote on Mon, 22 March 2010 14:58 |
1. SM58 2. SM58 3. Anything else that happens to be there to use. |
That would be an SM57 in the third spot. There always seem to be a couple left over.
These would be my picks.
Post by: Robert Alan on March 22, 2010, 09:41:44 PM
Post by: Dick Rees on March 22, 2010, 09:45:50 PM
| Robert Alan wrote on Mon, 22 March 2010 20:41 |
ok forget loudness or GBF and think more on density. if you can turn a mic up loud but it sounds like mud in the first place you would just have loud mud surely, not something that gets the vocal through/over the mix. as already said i know it would be more about finding a pocket in that particular mix but for arguments sake we could generalise here just a little bit and say that there are some mics that are better at finding pockets than others off the bat no? |
No. There are too many factors in play to put end results onto one piece of gear or portion of the whole. If the vocal is not part of the mix to begin with nothing will help. It should by definition be an equal or equitable part of the mix.
Post by: Tim Padrick on March 22, 2010, 10:04:49 PM
Post by: Scott Smith on March 22, 2010, 10:32:15 PM
| Jason Ellis wrote on Mon, 22 March 2010 17:02 |
... perhaps the band is too loud - pull down the "whole band" VCA...ahh vocals now cut through... |
+1. 100% full output is ALL you can have. You decide what rides near that level, and what rides lower..
Post by: Maury McCown on March 22, 2010, 11:31:45 PM
I sing right on top of the grill, too, so it fits my mic technique.
Post by: Earl F Young on March 22, 2010, 11:44:22 PM
Post by: Tom Reid on March 22, 2010, 11:45:37 PM
Then any mic you have in your kit will work.
Post by: Ales Dravinec 'Alex' on March 23, 2010, 02:10:04 AM
| Art Welter wrote |
One man’s “cut” is another man’s “icepick”. One mans’ “mud” is another man’s “beef”. |
and
| Tom Reid wrote |
Sound check your vocals first and your drums last. |
Two great answers
with respect
Post by: Tim Padrick on March 25, 2010, 06:45:02 AM
| Tom Reid wrote on Mon, 22 March 2010 22:45 |
Sound check your vocals first and your drums last. Then any mic you have in your kit will work. |
Or, sound check your drums first, then turn them off. Bring them in as needed once the band is playing a tune.
Post by: Guy Johnson on March 25, 2010, 09:09:50 AM
I'll line-check & sound-check whoever makes some noise first, me!
Post by: Dave Dermont on March 25, 2010, 09:13:27 AM
| Tim Padrick wrote on Thu, 25 March 2010 06:45 | ||
Or, sound check your drums first, then turn them off. Bring them in as needed once the band is playing a tune. |
YOU CAN TURN STUFF DOWN TOO?!?!?!? My choices would be:
OM7
BETA57
EV N/D967
There is a big pile of variable factors having to do with just what will make a vocal "pop out". More often than not, changing the singer is the only thing that will help, and that is usually not an option.
Good luck.
Post by: Tom Reid on March 25, 2010, 09:23:21 AM
| Dave Dermont wrote on Thu, 25 March 2010 08:13 | ||||
YOU CAN TURN STUFF DOWN TOO?!?!?!? My choices would be: OM7 BETA57 EV N/D967 There is a big pile of variable factors having to do with just what will make a vocal "pop out". More often than not, changing the singer is the only thing that will help, and that is usually not an option. Good luck. |
Yeah but the singer has to really want to change, and that can takes years of drugs and therapy.
I use SM86's across the front.
Unless the drummer only has one eye in the middle of his forehead.
Post by: Brian "beeherd" Jones on March 25, 2010, 01:27:40 PM
veering off topic slightly... Based on the results of this thread, I'm gonna pick up at least one each of the e835 and the OM7 since I want to do more work with bands and having what people like to use will help facilitate this. I also need a drum kit. I'm looking at a couple of D1's for kicks and SM57's for most everything else.
Post by: Tony "T" Tissot on March 25, 2010, 01:45:00 PM
| Brian "beeherd" Jones wrote on Thu, 25 March 2010 10:27 |
I also need a drum kit. I'm looking at a couple of D1's for kicks and SM57's for most everything else. |
(You'll end up one day with 50+ mics in your kit, nothing wrong with 6 or 10 of them being 57s - they always come in handy. If you provide audio for lots of folks, rather than just one band, they will be generally accepted.)
Post by: David Bedrack on March 27, 2010, 10:40:16 AM
Guess what vocal mics they had? Plain '58's.
Despite my feeling that much of the program material was heavily doctored (some vocals were too tight and tidy), they did actually sing into those mics.
The music was great, the SPL loud within the best taste, the mix crystal clear, and the BE was a fine guy named Kevin Kennedy, who never heard about the LAB before.
david b.
Post by: Jason Tubbs on March 27, 2010, 08:57:58 PM
| Brian "beeherd" Jones wrote on Thu, 25 March 2010 13:27 |
I also need a drum kit. I'm looking at a couple of D1's for kicks and SM57's for most everything else. |
I hope you mean "D4" or "D6". A D1 on kick would be...disappointing.
jt
Post by: Jordan Wolf on March 28, 2010, 01:59:19 AM
| Brian "beeherd" Jones wrote on Thu, 25 March 2010 13:27 |
...[V]eering off topic slightly...I'm gonna pick up at least one each of the e835 and the OM7 |
I would look at the e935 instead of the 835 (unless you get a lot of screechy singers). It will "cut through" the mix a bit more, in my opinion. The e835 is comparable to the SM58, but I feel it has a more apparent low-mid range (including proximity effect).
| Quote: |
I also need a drum kit. I'm looking at a couple of D1's for kicks and SM57's for most everything else. |
SM57s are nice and versatile and will only really give you problems when they get whacked by an errant drumstick (easy fix after the show). I personally recommend the Audix i5 as a substitute.
Can't comment on the Audix kits, but they, like most any mic kit, should be very workable. I'm working on a hodge-podge drum mic kit based on the many opinions and objective posts on this forum. Maybe you'd be interested in going that route, also?
Post by: Bill Burford on March 28, 2010, 03:17:09 AM
I used to be a shure beta fan exclusively.
but probably about 5 years ago I started moving to Sennheiser.
I still love shures-- use sm57's all the time for stuff. especially fender amps. *again, because I do it means zilch.
I didn't exactly seek out these mics. they were available. I experiement with them.
for vocals. for me personally, I like to use a plain old SM58.
thats for my vocal style. Lots of loud pipes with lots of texture and plenty of shreeking or yelling-- loud singing. whatever you call it. SM58.
for a beautiful voice-- like a Rhianna or something like that (yeah, not me pal.. I wish I mixed that) but for someone with a beautiful voice-- who sings most of the time. "SINGS" has a specific meaning to me still.. but for that kind.. I'd like to try an e965 by Sennheiser. if not.. the e935 would do great.
these stars use wireless versions and have in-ears and the best monitor radios with paddle anntennae and multichannels and frequencies so they are sort of living in utopia.
you do know that the microphone matters. but what matters more is the "pipes".. if you don't have the pipes to front a band, then it doesn't matter what you use, you won't be happy.
you can blame the monitors, the soundguy, the mic, the cable.. whatever.. its you. you can't do it. or you need to take 2 years to practice belting out some notes and build up so you don't faint.
ha ha
I was running sound. small show, small venue. but I had already toured all over at this point.. but I was back in my home town running a small band.
the one singer had almost no voice. she liked to sing a lot of the songs and you could tell that she had a lot of clout in the political structure of the band.
they took a break and I threw on some cd's and walked off to get some fresh air.
well, while I was gone, she swapped the mic+cable from her stand to another singer's mic+cable. She thought I was purposefully making her "not" as loud.
in her case, she was as gained up as could be for that venue. I do not allow feedback. I have some limits to how many frequencies I'll cut also.
so the louder guy's mic was actually lower-gain and lower fader AND lower monitor send than hers but she still traded the mic AND cord for hers.
So the break is over. I'm ready to rock. I'm ready to push her fader up to +10 or +15 -- whatever that board did, I forget.
they are both singing this time.
He is just LOUD AND CLEAR and she is CRAP. I could barely hear her.
I instantly pull him down about 5 dB and push her up 10 dB.
ha ha you could barely hear her at all now.
his harmonies were like lead solos.
I knew what happened. I fixed it for FOH.. but not for monitors.
She tapped oh her mic (used to be his) and looked right at me..
I looked back at her like " uh YESSS???"
but she realized she couldn't ask me anything because she was afraid I'd figure out what she did.
maam, I knew what you did after 5 words were sung.
she finally traded back after 2 more songs.
she was pissed off at me because she knew I knew some how.
after that, I worked enough magic to make her louder.
but she really didn't have the pipes.
Post by: Daniel East on April 15, 2010, 11:15:44 AM
I like it over and above the 865 and KMS-104/105 that were my main lead vocal mics for so long. The larger diaphragm captures the whole voice and sounds phenomenal in almost every venue I've tried. Very low handling noise. Very clear, natural, and the overall house mix wraps around the vocal really well once dialed in. (The mix, mic is nearly flat once settings under screen are switched to the right mode, etc..)
Just my taste and my opinion, but I really love the sound of this mic. You gotta get one of these...sweet.
Post by: Keith Shannon on April 15, 2010, 02:08:36 PM
| Daniel East wrote on Thu, 15 April 2010 10:15 |
I am a major fan of the Sennheiser e965. It is, by far, one of the smoothest, most natural sounding condenser vocal mics for live use that I've had. Matching the mic to the voice is a challenge. This thing is really natural on every vocal type I've tried -- male/female, soprano/alto/tenor, etc.. I like it over and above the 865 and KMS-104/105 that were my main lead vocal mics for so long. The larger diaphragm captures the whole voice and sounds phenomenal in almost every venue I've tried. Very low handling noise. Very clear, natural, and the overall house mix wraps around the vocal really well once dialed in. (The mix, mic is nearly flat once settings under screen are switched to the right mode, etc..) Just my taste and my opinion, but I really love the sound of this mic. You gotta get one of these...sweet. |
For $700/mic, the e965 had better be DAMN good. I use e835s which can be had in three-packs for $225 a pack, and they cut just fine with proper levels and a little EQ (on female voice I've noticed they need a little more treble sparkle and some attention to low mids). The 935s are a step up for about $150/mic, and the 865s are the condenser cousin for about $250/mic. The 935s are a little smoother and require less tweaking; plug em in and sound great. Haven't used the 865 but if the 965 is so great I can't imagine the 865 being a slouch.
Post by: Daniel East on April 15, 2010, 04:51:40 PM
I've mixed everything from 1,000+ clubs to arenas with this thing. There is no question in my mind that it sounds fantastic. Would I be happier if the thing cost under $500 (or less)? Of course, but I don't see that happening.
That said, I will not use the KMS104 or 105 nearly as much after having the 965. This is my high-end for when the vocals deserve it. I was really stunned by how good it sounded once I set it up. I still LOVE my 865 and KMS mics, but this thing...? Yea, it is really sweet.