Micing a cab live

C

chamelious

www.thesunexplodes.com
I've seen a lot of touring bands turn up with a wierd kind of mic clip that seems attached to their cab with their own mic as well. Anyone know where you can get hold of em?

I'm sick of turning up to venue's with awful gear. I'm thinking about finding the right mic for my cab and taking it with me (with the clip thingy maybe). Got a Framus 212 with V30's in. Anyone any suggestions aside from a SM57???
 
I'm not sure what the exact model is, but...

http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Audix-Cab-Grabber-Microphone-Holder?sku=703590

...that should do the trick.

Other than a SM57, huh? Is there anything in particular you dislike about a '57? The only other surrogate I've had any experience with is the Audix i5, which is nice - a little brighter and less mid-focused, which may or may not work for you. I go back and forth on which I prefer, but the i5 is probably a bit more "contemporary" sounding, for what it's worth.
 
moresound said:
For $50. it better be what you want. There is also a thing called a Z bar for $5. and it can be positioned anywhere.

Have you looked at the Sennheiser e606 microphone for guitar amp micing?





:cool:
Click to expand...

http://shop.mobro.net/browse.cfm/4,8536.html

More like $20, and it looks like gravity just holds it in place, whereas the other one locks. I don't own either, but the Audix design looks a lot more sturdy.

I haven't tried the e606 or e609, but I've been kind of thinking of grabbing a e906 for a while...
 
I've rarely heard a FOH guitar that sounds like the amp. A good tech can find it, but most don't care.
The ideal thing is to get most of the sound directly from the guitar/bass amps.
I like to use in ear monitors to keep the brain from melting.

The most common is the SM57. Next might be the Sennheiser.
 
I'm not against the 57, i was just already considering it is all, as well as those Senns the 606 and 906 look awesome. I like the fact they're flat against the grille.
 
DrewPeterson7 said:
I'm not sure what the exact model is, but...

http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Audix-Cab-Grabber-Microphone-Holder?sku=703590

...that should do the trick.

Other than a SM57, huh? Is there anything in particular you dislike about a '57? The only other surrogate I've had any experience with is the Audix i5, which is nice - a little brighter and less mid-focused, which may or may not work for you. I go back and forth on which I prefer, but the i5 is probably a bit more "contemporary" sounding, for what it's worth.
Click to expand...

I do the 'CabGrabber too -fits in my bag compact, and PR20 lately. It's sounding nice and balanced on our live-tracker' tapes (but be warned my style is mostly on the clean side.
 
all the sound guys i've worked with using this device, have loved it, hands down.

most of them were very wary at first.
once they heard it, they took their mics down.
 
and the palmer is typically just as cheap as a decent dynamic.

but has way more opportunity for tonal changes.

plus, ZERO FEEDBACK

probably the biggest plus of all
 
ah.....

had a soundman just tell me that he liked the palmer better than a mic, because he can eq it easier.
since it's a line level signal, it give the soundguy all kinds of control.

that's why people like alex lifeson, eddie van halen, joe satriani, keith richards, use them for live work and recording.
 
GONZO-X said:
and the palmer is typically just as cheap as a decent dynamic.

but has way more opportunity for tonal changes.

plus, ZERO FEEDBACK

probably the biggest plus of all
Click to expand...


GONZO-X said:
ah.....

had a soundman just tell me that he liked the palmer better than a mic, because he can eq it easier.
since it's a line level signal, it give the soundguy all kinds of control.

that's why people like alex lifeson, eddie van halen, joe satriani, keith richards, use them for live work and recording.
Click to expand...

Little bit of misinformation here.

First, a Palmer actually gives you less tonal control than a mic, even though it has more "controls." A mic is infinitely variable - you can control it by varying distance from and position on the cone and angle in relationship to the cone, and change how proximitiy effect colors your tone. The Palmer may have more knobs and settings than a mic, but the act of positioning a mic, something that's again infinitely variable, is something those controls are trying to replicate.

Second, a mic'd signal or a line level signal are just as easy to EQ, and the difference between them from a soundguy's perspective is pretty minimal - either run the mic through a mic pre on the board, or put the line signal through a line insert. Both bring you to the same point once you've set levels, and after that an EQ is an EQ.

The one area where a Palmer IS easier to work with is controlling the balance between stage volume and the mains - since the stage volume of an amp going direct is zero, the soundman has perfect control over the amount of guitar the audience will here. That's advantageous if you have a good sound guy, but if you don't it's a bit scary and unless you're using V-drums and running the bass and other instruments direct as well (and have a quiet singer), then the guitar is the only instrument being controlled in this manner, which will cause balance problems with the other instruments depending on where you're standing.

Third, I can't speak for all the guys you list - I have no idea about Lifeson or Richards, but IIRC Eddie Van Halen was just using it to feed an output from one amp into another, and as far as Satriani, the albums he's used the Palmer on were, barring the most recent, some of the worst tonally of his career and it was a decision driven by convenience (the ability to track in his house whenever he wanted) and not tone. How much of this is the Palmer's fault is debatable, since it's also about the time he switched to Peavey, but I certainty (and I say this as a huge Satriani fan) use Joe as an example of the awesome sounds you can get with a Palmer. Either way, live he's all mic'd amps.
 
First, a Palmer actually gives you less tonal control than a mic
Click to expand...

not by my experience.


do you own one?
have you used one?


i've heard the difference, between eq'ing a live mic, and the palmer
i can only tell, what i know 1st hand.

yes, the palmer has distinct tone settings hard wired into it, which you choose the closest one to your liking.
versus the variability of the positioning of the mic.

but this completely misses the point.

no one, has the time, or inclination, to spend forever positioning a mic on stage, only to have a stagehand accidentally bump it, and make all that work fly out the window.

most fellows throw a mic over the cabinet, hanging from the mic cable, lying on the grille cloth approximately centered on the speaker, and call it good.

this device is for those kinds of people, who understand the worth of having a single device that ALWAYS sounds the same way, that always gives a certain level of expected steadiness to the sound, that can be counted on.

the pluses outweight the minuses.

joe can do anything he wants, and choses to work with the palmer, i don't think he's thinking anything except he likes what he's getting from the palmer, if you don't, i'm sure he'll live with that.


i've spent 2 years recording with one now, after almost 26 years of recording experience with microphones, in everything from pro studios to my home studio.
i would urge anyone who is interested, to check out the recordings i've made with it.



here's a quick short set of links of various examples:




 
GONZO-X said:
yes, the palmer has distinct tone settings hard wired into it, which you choose the closest one to your liking.
versus the variability of the positioning of the mic.

but this completely misses the point.

no one, has the time, or inclination, to spend forever positioning a mic on stage, only to have a stagehand accidentally bump it, and make all that work fly out the window.
Click to expand...

Ahh, ok, so a Palmer has LESS tonal flexibility than selecting and positioning a mic, but it's faster and also less likely to get changed on you mid-set? That's a VERY different thing, man. ;)

Palmers are cool pieces of gear, man, no doubt, and in some situations they're definitely preferable to a mic. But they're not preferable to mics in ALL situations - they're worth looking at, but they're not the magic bullet you're making them out to be.

(and, honestly, it's not THAT hard to mic up an amp. There's a learning curve, yes, but this is the guitar part of a recording forum - most of us here have probably mic'd up once or twice. ;))
 
like i said, i've been recording for many years.
i can get a good sound out of ANYONE's rig, with a mic.
even a crappy sounding rig.



i spent 6 years full time playing clubs for a living, so i'm well versed with live application.

i can tell you, from years of experience, for live application, the junction is worth it's weight in gold.
there's really no down side to it at all.

on top of THAT......

i'm getting excellent results with it for recording, and you can hear that for yourself, with the links i provided.

so, in the spirit of the question that was asked by the OP, i've provided an excellent tool to consider...

one that everyone who is SERIOUS about live sound reinforcement should try out.
 
Doesn't the Palmer completely ignore the power section of the amp (feeds off the preamp output) and also the speakers/cab?

I'm sure you can get a decent tone out of just the preamp section using the Plamer...but it does limit you only to that, which kinda' falls short for anyone going for power tube crunch and using specifc cab/speakers for their sound.
A mic captures all of that.

*EDIT*

OK...I see now in their description that it can also go in-between the amp and speaker (though you still don't get any of the speaker/cab flavor for your tones).

I have one of these, which is a similar idea, though specifically intended to go in-between the amp and speakers.

http://www.radialeng.com/re-jdx.htm

I've not tried it specifically for live use...but you can use it for studio stuff along with a mic as shown on their web page.
 
Doesn't the Palmer completely ignore the power section of the amp (feeds off the preamp output) and also the speakers/cab?
Click to expand...

no, this is completely wrong.

it sees the full output of the amp (post power output and transformer section)
it then applies a filter to that signal (to approximate the sound of different speaker cabinets)
then it ouput's that filtered signal at line level


it's quite fascinating.

go here to learn more:

http://www.palmergear.com/pdi09.shtml



the ONLY reason i use it, is because i've coupled it with my Weber Mass Lite attenuator, and run my vintage mesa pretty much wide open, with cleaned up preamp gain, and get my power tube distortion dialed in, where the transformer is in saturation......

plus, with the palmer and the attenuator setup, i can also mic up the cabinet, and dial in the volume anywhere from whisper, to screaming full up, and then blend that track with the palmer direct track.


the pdi-09 uses the same filter as the filter section of the more professional-grade PGA-04:
a blurb about that:

The PGA-04 ADIG-LB - Advanced Direct Injection for Guitar-Load Box is the successor to our legendary speaker simulator, which has conquered recording studios world wide and is used by such renowned artists as Keith Richards/Rolling Stones, Alex Lifeson/Rush, Warren Cucurollo/Duran Duran, as well as Eddie Van Halen and Def Leppard, only to name a few...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top