Live Vocal Mic

[pdadda]

I currently use an Audix OM-2. But I have been having some feedback problems lately, even after messing around a bunch with mic/speaker/monitor positioning. I want to buy one more live vocal mic and be done with it. I sing some pretty agressive rock vocals, and I am a bit of a mic eater. Any suggestions? I have thought about a shure beta 87.

 

[DJL]

I currently use an Audix OM-2. But I have been having some feedback problems lately, even after messing around a bunch with mic/speaker/monitor positioning. I want to buy one more live vocal mic and be done with it. I sing some pretty agressive rock vocals, and I am a bit of a mic eater. Any suggestions? I have thought about a shure beta 87.

You are using a 31 band graphic and parametric EQ in your monitoring system right?

 

[Farview]

shure sm58 of beta 58.

 

[pdadda]

I appreciate the cynicism, but no. Would buying an outboard EQ for vocals be a better idea than a new mic for feedback control?

 

[DJL]

I appreciate the cynicism, but no. Would buying an outboard EQ for vocals be a better idea than a new mic for feedback control?

Yes... absolutely.

 

[Big Kenny]

He's right, ya know. Especially if you have that beta

 

[Han]

A graphic EQ on monitors can help, but don't go too far for you'll end with a dull vocal sound on the monitor.

A Beyer M88 sounds great and can go very loud on monitors before feedback occurs.

Same with the Sennheiser MD431 profipower.

Don, check yer PM.

 

[DJL]

A graphic EQ on monitors can help, but don't go too far for you'll end with a dull vocal sound on the monitor.

A Beyer M88 sounds great and can go very loud on monitors before feedback occurs.

Same with the Sennheiser MD431 profipower.

Don, check yer PM.

I agree... always start with the EQ flat and never use anymore EQ than necessary to achieve the sound you need/want.

PS... I got it.

 

[Farview]

If you are one of those guys that cup the mic with your hands, that could be part of the problem as well. If you plug up the back of the capsule, the mic turns into more of an Omni than a cardioid, so it feeds back easier. EQ will help as well. Also make sure there are no obvious reflections between the speaker and where you are singing.

 

[pdadda]

I am definitely not a mic cupper. I play guitar at the same time.

 

[Farview]

I am definitely not a mic cupper. I play guitar at the same time.

Then we are back to eq, placement, and maybe a new mic. BTW, the smaller the room you are playing in is, the harder it is to avoid feedback.

 

[DJL]

For live shows... good monitor EQing is a MUST... period.

 

[boingoman]

I currently use an Audix OM-2. But I have been having some feedback problems lately, even after messing around a bunch with mic/speaker/monitor positioning. I want to buy one more live vocal mic and be done with it. I sing some pretty agressive rock vocals, and I am a bit of a mic eater. Any suggestions? I have thought about a shure beta 87.

I agree with everyone above, monitor EQ is essential. The beta 87 sounds great on some voices, not so much on others, and to my ears tends to flatter females more than males. One of the problems I've found is that if you don't make a good choice for your voice, the EQ necessary to make it sound good sometimes cancels out any benefits of choosing a mic for feedback rejection characteristics.

The 87 also comes in two patterns, cardioid and supercardioid. If you go for one of those, I'd choose super, especially in a rock setting on smaller stages. The tighter pattern has more rejection. Monitor placement is also important. You want the monitors pointing into the null spots of the microphone if possible to minimixe feedback.

I used to have an OM-2, and gave it up for the same reasons. Recently, though, I tried an OM-6 and was very impressed. I am almost certainly going to replace my beta 58s with this model. Very stable, and great sounding. Makes the beta 58 sound like its got a blanket on it, and rejects feedback at least as well. If you are looking for a condenser, check out the Audio-Technica hand-held stage condensers. They sound great, and not quite as screechy as the beta 87, but still enough presence to get above a loud rock mix.

 

[pdadda]

Does anyone have a suggestion for a good EQ for live work?

 

[Light]

I don't actually like graphics for ringing out monitors. I much prefer a good 4+2 parametric. I don't like to use more than a handful of frequencies anyway, and the sound quality of the parametrics is so much higher than a graphic, it just makes life easier. I find that graphics tend to make more problems than they solve. At least for me.

The Beta 87 (the one with the hypercardioid pattern) is my favorite live vocal mic. It sounds great, and it has a great rejection pattern. Just don't put the monitor directly behind it.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[pdadda]

Any particular parametric EQ? I am hoping to keep it under $500 if I can. If I will be wasting my money in that range, I'll save up though.

 

[dejacky]

how about a sennhesier e835? i've had good results and little to no eq needed.

 

[Light]

Any particular parametric EQ? I am hoping to keep it under $500 if I can. If I will be wasting my money in that range, I'll save up though.

One that works. I am not picky. Nothing Mackie has ever made, at least not for EQ. But really, I have used all sorts of stuff happily. Just find one that works.

What you do is you set the Q fairly narrow, and then you set the frequency control to the bottom of the range. You then boost the gain on the monitor until it is just about to feedback, somewhere around 2-3 dB before feedback. You boost the EQ band about 3 dB, and then sweep the frequency until you find the frequency, and you will know. You then cut that frequency to about negative 2-3 dB. I don't actually start to cut when I ring `em out. I cut the gain to the monitor a couple dB and leave everything flat. I only start to cut when I need to. People can usually get by with less monitor if it is not EQ to shit than if it is. Even when I use graphics (which is most of the time, unfortunately), I mark the frequencies which will be a problem, so I know what to grab if something starts to get a little ringy. It makes the monitors sound better if you do as little as possible, and that makes players happy. I also make sure to take full advantage of the null points in the mics pickup pattern. It also helps to get really good monitors. My favorites are Meyers. With powered Meyers, I can usually get away with little to no EQ. But of course, they are VERY expensive, so they are not a practical solution for most people.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[Treeline]

Another vote for a 31 band graphic EQ for the monitors!! I bought "one that works" for a hundred bucks and it is fantastic. Mine is a DOD, as basic as you can get: No pedigree and no pretense. Saved my butt more than a few times. The trick is to go for 31 bands so the Q on each one is a very narrow bandwidth. You find the offending frequency and notch it down a hair.

Auto EQ might work in a monitor situation - look at Behringer here (Ya! I actually said that! I used the B- word and I meant it! ) for both automatic stuff and a manual EQ that lights up the offending band. If you're wrestling in the middle of a song, you can't afford to go trial and error. You should be able to find something slick here for a couple hundred bucks.

I agree that a good parametric EQ is head and shoulders above this approach, but I tend to get stressed when things get out of hand and the graphic EQ is just that: graphic. It matches the way I think, which seems to involve a lot of visual imagery. I respond quicker to a graphic display than to an analog numeric kind of control.

 

[DJL]

pdadda... I recommend getting a constant Q type 31 band graphic EQ... some even have parametric EQ's built in... and since your new at this, it may not be a bad idea to get one with a feedback destroyer in it.