Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Mic Decisions

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 3:37:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I am going to record my first multi-track live band next week and I would
like some advice on mic selection. Except for an electric guitar, the band
is acoustic blue grass without percussion. The guitar does not play overly
loud. This is an amplified performance with stage monitors.

The two vocal mics that I have and love are supercardioid (KMS105). My
concern is that they will pick up too much of the other instruments and
monitors. I would like to know if I should use something lower sound
quality like SM58s or go ahead with the supercardioids (concerned about
feedback and bleed). This thought also applies to the banjo (played by an
non singer) and acoustic guitar (played by the lead singer) where I would
like to use KM184s.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

John

More about : mic decisions

Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 3:37:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

John Phillips <jsp5646@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The two vocal mics that I have and love are supercardioid (KMS105). My
>concern is that they will pick up too much of the other instruments and
>monitors. I would like to know if I should use something lower sound
>quality like SM58s or go ahead with the supercardioids (concerned about
>feedback and bleed). This thought also applies to the banjo (played by an
>non singer) and acoustic guitar (played by the lead singer) where I would
>like to use KM184s.

The KMS105 are amazingly narrower than anything else around for that sort
of application. They will pick up too much leakage, but they will pick up
orders of magnitude less leakage than an SM-58. The degree of rejection
from the KMS105 (which is a hypercardioid, not a supercardioid) is amazing.
Nothing made will give you less leakage, except maybe a Sennheiser 431
or tracking vocals seperately.

Everything else you can probably just record with two appropriately
positioned KM184s.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 3:37:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I appreciate your experience with the KMS105, Scott. Mine was
completely opposite when used in a live sound setup. The Neumanns' GBF
was nowhere close to as good as Shure Beta 87a. We were running a pair
for vocals, with mains pretty close on the sides, no monitors. Could
be different for recording at acoustic levels I guess....

Anyway, the OP needs to watch placement to avoid the hypercard lobes
obviously.

Steve
Related resources
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 4:38:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thank you so much for the experience, I will be able to save years of errors
in my learning with this NG.

I am going to mic each instrument to its own track because the PA or monitor
would spoil the sound for the KM184s if used as overall or "positioned"
mics., I want to use the KM184a as close mics for the mandolin and banjo (I
have two). I also understand that if I were truly talented that I could mix
the performance live but with multi-track I can fix my novice errors in the
mix.

John


"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cp88ui$d4h$1@panix2.panix.com...
> John Phillips <jsp5646@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >The two vocal mics that I have and love are supercardioid (KMS105). My
> >concern is that they will pick up too much of the other instruments and
> >monitors. I would like to know if I should use something lower sound
> >quality like SM58s or go ahead with the supercardioids (concerned about
> >feedback and bleed). This thought also applies to the banjo (played by
an
> >non singer) and acoustic guitar (played by the lead singer) where I would
> >like to use KM184s.
>
> The KMS105 are amazingly narrower than anything else around for that sort
> of application. They will pick up too much leakage, but they will pick up
> orders of magnitude less leakage than an SM-58. The degree of rejection
> from the KMS105 (which is a hypercardioid, not a supercardioid) is
amazing.
> Nothing made will give you less leakage, except maybe a Sennheiser 431
> or tracking vocals seperately.
>
> Everything else you can probably just record with two appropriately
> positioned KM184s.
> --scott
>
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 4:38:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

John Phillips <jsp5646@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I am going to mic each instrument to its own track because the PA or monitor
>would spoil the sound for the KM184s if used as overall or "positioned"
>mics., I want to use the KM184a as close mics for the mandolin and banjo (I
>have two). I also understand that if I were truly talented that I could mix
>the performance live but with multi-track I can fix my novice errors in the
>mix.

Got any other good condensers? There is no reason you can't both spotmike
the instruments and get a good overall pair; there are plenty of tracks
available. You may like one more, you may like the other, you may want to
combine them.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 4:38:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

You might want to consider dynamic mics on the banjo & fiddle.

Al

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 01:38:19 GMT, "John Phillips"
<jsp5646@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Thank you so much for the experience, I will be able to save years of errors
>in my learning with this NG.
>
>I am going to mic each instrument to its own track because the PA or monitor
>would spoil the sound for the KM184s if used as overall or "positioned"
>mics., I want to use the KM184a as close mics for the mandolin and banjo (I
>have two). I also understand that if I were truly talented that I could mix
>the performance live but with multi-track I can fix my novice errors in the
>mix.
>
>John
>
>
>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:cp88ui$d4h$1@panix2.panix.com...
>> John Phillips <jsp5646@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >The two vocal mics that I have and love are supercardioid (KMS105). My
>> >concern is that they will pick up too much of the other instruments and
>> >monitors. I would like to know if I should use something lower sound
>> >quality like SM58s or go ahead with the supercardioids (concerned about
>> >feedback and bleed). This thought also applies to the banjo (played by
>an
>> >non singer) and acoustic guitar (played by the lead singer) where I would
>> >like to use KM184s.
>>
>> The KMS105 are amazingly narrower than anything else around for that sort
>> of application. They will pick up too much leakage, but they will pick up
>> orders of magnitude less leakage than an SM-58. The degree of rejection
>> from the KMS105 (which is a hypercardioid, not a supercardioid) is
>amazing.
>> Nothing made will give you less leakage, except maybe a Sennheiser 431
>> or tracking vocals seperately.
>>
>> Everything else you can probably just record with two appropriately
>> positioned KM184s.
>> --scott
>>
>>
>> --
>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 4:38:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cp8dsf$5bh$1@panix2.panix.com...
> John Phillips <jsp5646@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >I am going to mic each instrument to its own track because the PA or
monitor
> >would spoil the sound for the KM184s if used as overall or "positioned"
> >mics., I want to use the KM184a as close mics for the mandolin and banjo
(I
> >have two). I also understand that if I were truly talented that I could
mix
> >the performance live but with multi-track I can fix my novice errors in
the
> >mix.
>
> Got any other good condensers? There is no reason you can't both spotmike
> the instruments and get a good overall pair; there are plenty of tracks
> available. You may like one more, you may like the other, you may want to
> combine them.

You're going to get plenty of bleed. Just accept it and live with it. As
Scott said, more directional mics like the KMS105 are a good thing.

If you have a spare pair of mics (and tracks...you didn't say what you
were using for a recorder) for stereo "overall", go ahead and do it. I've
had very good results doing this at outdoor gigs when we (I was also
in the band) were playing into 2 mics (for the whole band) with no
monitors. Indoors, with monitors, your stereo pair may or may not
be as satisfactory, but it won't hurt to have them if you have the spare
mics and recording channels.

Hal Laurent
Baltimore
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 9:26:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:37:21 -0500, John Phillips wrote
(in article <57Ntd.19671$8S5.2035552@twister.southeast.rr.com>):

> I am going to record my first multi-track live band next week and I would
> like some advice on mic selection. Except for an electric guitar, the band
> is acoustic blue grass without percussion. The guitar does not play overly
> loud. This is an amplified performance with stage monitors.
>
> The two vocal mics that I have and love are supercardioid (KMS105). My
> concern is that they will pick up too much of the other instruments and
> monitors. I would like to know if I should use something lower sound
> quality like SM58s or go ahead with the supercardioids (concerned about
> feedback and bleed). This thought also applies to the banjo (played by an
> non singer) and acoustic guitar (played by the lead singer) where I would
> like to use KM184s.
>
> Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
>
> John
>
>

The KMS 105 have one of the tightest patterns around. If you place your
monitors in the nulls, I'm guessing you should be OK.

A LOT depends on the monitors and PA. I get real nervous when people start
bringing out instrument mics for PA gig. Bring both and allow time to
experiment. Also be prepared to sacrifice tone (pickups instead of mics) for
amplification.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 9:28:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 20:38:19 -0500, John Phillips wrote
(in article <f0Otd.19937$8S5.2038014@twister.southeast.rr.com>):

> Thank you so much for the experience, I will be able to save years of errors
> in my learning with this NG.
>
> I am going to mic each instrument to its own track because the PA or monitor
> would spoil the sound for the KM184s if used as overall or "positioned"
> mics., I want to use the KM184a as close mics for the mandolin and banjo (I
> have two). I also understand that if I were truly talented that I could mix
> the performance live but with multi-track I can fix my novice errors in the
> mix.
>
> John

And learn a lesson or two in how bleed on stage effects your attempt to
capture each instrument individually with a mic.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 10:48:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> One thing is that you can get the Beta 87 way up in your face without

> it popping and getting muffled, which is not the case for the KMS105,
> and that can be a big advantage for the Beta 87 on some singers.
Also
> the exaggerated top end on the KMS105 is going to make for more
feedback
> problems in the top octave (although you can EQ it down).

Absolutely agree on this, and these were indeed large reasons why we
could get stronger dynamics with less feedback with the Shures. In the
KSM105 manual/literature Neumann repeatedly references IEM applications
for this mic. And many if not most of the live applications I've seen
it used on are using earbuds.

> >Anyway, the OP needs to watch placement to avoid the hypercard lobes
> >obviously.
>
> Yes. I don't see that as a huge problem but it's something to watch
out
> for (and it may be part the reason for your experience too).

Well, we weren't using floor monitors at the time, but of course room
reflections could certainly add up. I mentioned the pattern lobes
because the OP is using monitors, and of course the
hyper/supercardioids usually don't like floor speakers directly behind
them.

Steve
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 12:45:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1102575712.592824.263230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Steve Scott <squeegybug@netspace1.com> wrote:
>I appreciate your experience with the KMS105, Scott. Mine was
>completely opposite when used in a live sound setup. The Neumanns' GBF
>was nowhere close to as good as Shure Beta 87a. We were running a pair
>for vocals, with mains pretty close on the sides, no monitors. Could
>be different for recording at acoustic levels I guess....

One thing is that you can get the Beta 87 way up in your face without
it popping and getting muffled, which is not the case for the KMS105,
and that can be a big advantage for the Beta 87 on some singers. Also
the exaggerated top end on the KMS105 is going to make for more feedback
problems in the top octave (although you can EQ it down).

>Anyway, the OP needs to watch placement to avoid the hypercard lobes
>obviously.

Yes. I don't see that as a huge problem but it's something to watch out
for (and it may be part the reason for your experience too).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 12:52:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The only other condensers that I have are the three Studio Projects B1s and
a single Shure Beta 87A (I may be able to get a second 87A. I am using the
Digidesign 002 Rack and I only have 8 inputs at this time. To spot mic each
vocal and each instrument will require at least 7 channels for this band.

I know that I am going to get bleed but I do not want to start out with
something that is a known failure. I am concerned about the KM184s with too
much bleed and feedback.

John


"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cp8dsf$5bh$1@panix2.panix.com...
> John Phillips <jsp5646@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >I am going to mic each instrument to its own track because the PA or
monitor
> >would spoil the sound for the KM184s if used as overall or "positioned"
> >mics., I want to use the KM184a as close mics for the mandolin and banjo
(I
> >have two). I also understand that if I were truly talented that I could
mix
> >the performance live but with multi-track I can fix my novice errors in
the
> >mix.
>
> Got any other good condensers? There is no reason you can't both spotmike
> the instruments and get a good overall pair; there are plenty of tracks
> available. You may like one more, you may like the other, you may want to
> combine them.
> --scott
>
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 12:52:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

John Phillips <jsp5646@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The only other condensers that I have are the three Studio Projects B1s and
>a single Shure Beta 87A (I may be able to get a second 87A. I am using the
>Digidesign 002 Rack and I only have 8 inputs at this time. To spot mic each
>vocal and each instrument will require at least 7 channels for this band.

Well, try a pair of the B-1s as an overall stage pair.

>I know that I am going to get bleed but I do not want to start out with
>something that is a known failure. I am concerned about the KM184s with too
>much bleed and feedback.

Bleed is _good_ for you. Bleed can be your friend. There's nothing wrong
with adjacent instruments leaking into spot feeds, IF they sound good when
they do. The key is to make the leakage sound good.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 1:29:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cp9odl$891$1@panix2.panix.com

> One thing is that you can get the Beta 87 way up in your face without
> it popping and getting muffled, which is not the case for the KMS105,
> and that can be a big advantage for the Beta 87 on some singers. Also
> the exaggerated top end on the KMS105 is going to make for more
> feedback problems in the top octave (although you can EQ it down).

I notice that as a rule Hypercardioids have quite a bit of high end lift.

Do you think the high end lift is inherent in the hypercardioid design, or
is the hyped high end part of a general desire to kick intelligibility up a
notch.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 2:48:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cp88ui$d4h$1@panix2.panix.com...

> Nothing made will give you less leakage, except maybe a Sennheiser 431

Uhh, Scott, did you perhaps mean a 441?

Oh wait, checking the data sheets shows the polar patterns of the 431 and
441 to be almost identical. My duh...


Dave O'Heare
oheareATmagmaDOTca
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 3:30:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:cp9odl$891$1@panix2.panix.com
>
>> One thing is that you can get the Beta 87 way up in your face without
>> it popping and getting muffled, which is not the case for the KMS105,
>> and that can be a big advantage for the Beta 87 on some singers. Also
>> the exaggerated top end on the KMS105 is going to make for more
>> feedback problems in the top octave (although you can EQ it down).
>
>I notice that as a rule Hypercardioids have quite a bit of high end lift.
>
>Do you think the high end lift is inherent in the hypercardioid design, or
>is the hyped high end part of a general desire to kick intelligibility up a
>notch.

It's not in any way inherent to the design, because there are plenty of
hypercardioids out there that are quite flat and have no real presence peak
or top end rise (and the EV N/D 468 is a common cheapie that is like this).

The KMS105 is basically supposed to sound like a U87 sounds on-axis. It's
voiced to have that huge, peaky top end, basically because singers asked
for a mike that sounded like the way the U87 sounded in the studio. So it
has the hypercardioid pattern for tight rejection and off-axis response that
is as much as possible like the on-axis response, but it also has a very
specifically tailored top end to make vocals more "airy" sounding.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 3:47:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Dave O'Heare <oheareATmagmaDOTca> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:cp88ui$d4h$1@panix2.panix.com...
>
>> Nothing made will give you less leakage, except maybe a Sennheiser 431
>
>Uhh, Scott, did you perhaps mean a 441?
>
>Oh wait, checking the data sheets shows the polar patterns of the 431 and
>441 to be almost identical. My duh...

The 441 pops like mad as a vocal mike. It'll work on some vocalists if
they will keep it far enough back, but most of them want to creep up too
much on it.

I think the 431 actually has a slightly wider pattern than the 441, but
it's still very tight and it's much harder to pop. It will still pop more
easily than an SM-58, though.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 6:53:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:29:27 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <Ws6dnWjF_IBe8iXcRVn-1g@comcast.com>):

> "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:cp9odl$891$1@panix2.panix.com
>
>> One thing is that you can get the Beta 87 way up in your face without
>> it popping and getting muffled, which is not the case for the KMS105,
>> and that can be a big advantage for the Beta 87 on some singers. Also
>> the exaggerated top end on the KMS105 is going to make for more
>> feedback problems in the top octave (although you can EQ it down).
>
> I notice that as a rule Hypercardioids have quite a bit of high end lift.
>
> Do you think the high end lift is inherent in the hypercardioid design, or
> is the hyped high end part of a general desire to kick intelligibility up a
> notch.
>
>

The schoeps cmc641 hyper s extremely natural, Arny. Do yourself a favor.

Ty

-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 7:11:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< I know that I am going to get bleed but I do not want to start out with
something that is a known failure. I am concerned about the KM184s with too
much bleed and feedback. >>



Feedback is a PA problem, solved by using a competent FOH engineer. Bleed is
not inherently a problem. Leakage can often be the glue that holds your mix
together & provides a sense of space. Don't assume you're screwed before you've
even started, because every live recording ever made has bleed from one source
into adjacent microphones. You only need a few db of separation between sources
to be able to effectively mix your multitrack. Stop worrying.

Scott Fraser
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 7:31:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RLudnYcqiKf6JiXcRVn-gA@comcast.com
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:29:27 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <Ws6dnWjF_IBe8iXcRVn-1g@comcast.com>):
>
>> "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:cp9odl$891$1@panix2.panix.com
>>
>>> One thing is that you can get the Beta 87 way up in your face
>>> without it popping and getting muffled, which is not the case for
>>> the KMS105, and that can be a big advantage for the Beta 87 on some
>>> singers. Also the exaggerated top end on the KMS105 is going to
>>> make for more feedback problems in the top octave (although you can
>>> EQ it down).
>>
>> I notice that as a rule Hypercardioids have quite a bit of high end
>> lift.
>>
>> Do you think the high end lift is inherent in the hypercardioid
>> design, or is the hyped high end part of a general desire to kick
>> intelligibility up a notch.
>>
>>
>
> The schoeps cmc641 hyper s extremely natural, Arny. Do yourself a
> favor.

At the price, that would indeed be a favor - as long as it was on someone
else's visa card! ;-)
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 9, 2004 9:02:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1102607303.892593.254060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> squeegybug@netspace1.com writes:

> Absolutely agree on this, and these were indeed large reasons why we
> could get stronger dynamics with less feedback with the Shures. In the
> KSM105 manual/literature Neumann repeatedly references IEM applications
> for this mic. And many if not most of the live applications I've seen
> it used on are using earbuds.

So the mic is optimized for in-ear monitors, and not for the best
house sound? How strange (or a strange interpretation of the
literature, or a strange interpretation on my part of what you said).


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 10, 2004 2:16:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 16:31:43 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <pNKdnSyRzME0WSXcRVn-tA@comcast.com>):

> "Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:RLudnYcqiKf6JiXcRVn-gA@comcast.com
>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:29:27 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article <Ws6dnWjF_IBe8iXcRVn-1g@comcast.com>):
>>
>>> "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cp9odl$891$1@panix2.panix.com
>>>
>>>> One thing is that you can get the Beta 87 way up in your face
>>>> without it popping and getting muffled, which is not the case for
>>>> the KMS105, and that can be a big advantage for the Beta 87 on some
>>>> singers. Also the exaggerated top end on the KMS105 is going to
>>>> make for more feedback problems in the top octave (although you can
>>>> EQ it down).
>>>
>>> I notice that as a rule Hypercardioids have quite a bit of high end
>>> lift.
>>>
>>> Do you think the high end lift is inherent in the hypercardioid
>>> design, or is the hyped high end part of a general desire to kick
>>> intelligibility up a notch.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The schoeps cmc641 hyper s extremely natural, Arny. Do yourself a
>> favor.
>
> At the price, that would indeed be a favor - as long as it was on someone
> else's visa card! ;-)
>
>

rent one.

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 10, 2004 2:19:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 18:02:01 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article <znr1102615181k@trad>):

>
> In article <1102607303.892593.254060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> squeegybug@netspace1.com writes:
>
>> Absolutely agree on this, and these were indeed large reasons why we
>> could get stronger dynamics with less feedback with the Shures. In the
>> KSM105 manual/literature Neumann repeatedly references IEM applications
>> for this mic. And many if not most of the live applications I've seen
>> it used on are using earbuds.
>
> So the mic is optimized for in-ear monitors, and not for the best
> house sound? How strange (or a strange interpretation of the
> literature, or a strange interpretation on my part of what you said).

I think you put the cart before the horse. Last time I talked about it with
anyone at Neumann, they said vocalists who use the mic thought it kicked butt
in monitors. Not mention of in ear or floor wedges, etc. was mentioned.

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 10, 2004 6:59:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <w-CdnSN8KpXmUSTcRVn-gw@comcast.com> tyreeford@comcast.net writes:

> I think you put the cart before the horse. Last time I talked about it with
> anyone at Neumann, they said vocalists who use the mic thought it kicked butt
> in monitors. Not mention of in ear or floor wedges, etc. was mentioned.

The KSM105, about which I think we're still talking?

Well, I can certainly see that vocalists who were handed a mic
specifically designed for live performance are presumably using it in
live performance and therefore would have more to say about how it
sounded in the monitors (whatever form they were using) than what it
sounded like in the house. For that, you have to talk to the house
engineers.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 10, 2004 6:59:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <w-CdnSN8KpXmUSTcRVn-gw@comcast.com> tyreeford@comcast.net
writes:
>
> > I think you put the cart before the horse. Last time I talked about
it with
> > anyone at Neumann, they said vocalists who use the mic thought it
kicked butt
> > in monitors. Not mention of in ear or floor wedges, etc. was
mentioned.
>
> The KSM105, about which I think we're still talking?
>
> Well, I can certainly see that vocalists who were handed a mic
> specifically designed for live performance are presumably using it in
> live performance and therefore would have more to say about how it
> sounded in the monitors (whatever form they were using) than what it
> sounded like in the house. For that, you have to talk to the house
> engineers.

I doubt Neumann would reference customers who preferred something other
than Neumann...? All I can go on is my own experience. I used 'em,
they didn't provide as much GBF as the Beta 87a, they sounded very
"thin and light", no usable proximity effect for my baritone voice. As
noted many times, this mic needs some distance from the singer, and
that increases chances for extraneous sounds to cause problems (like
from floor monitors, or in my case, close mains).

I expect they could produce a nice sound if used with in-ear monitors
rather than floor wedges, since the stage wash would be minimized. And
I'm sure they provide decent sound in the FOH. But that high frequency
boost that sounds appealing to some folks in the house speakers doesn't
work very well onstage IMO.

Steve
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 10, 2004 8:42:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ty Ford wrote:

> Mike Rivers wrote

> > squeegybug writes:

> >> Absolutely agree on this, and these were indeed large reasons why we
> >> could get stronger dynamics with less feedback with the Shures. In the
> >> KSM105 manual/literature Neumann repeatedly references IEM applications
> >> for this mic. And many if not most of the live applications I've seen
> >> it used on are using earbuds.

> > So the mic is optimized for in-ear monitors, and not for the best
> > house sound? How strange (or a strange interpretation of the
> > literature, or a strange interpretation on my part of what you said).

> I think you put the cart before the horse. Last time I talked about it with
> anyone at Neumann, they said vocalists who use the mic thought it kicked butt
> in monitors. Not mention of in ear or floor wedges, etc. was mentioned.

Contemporary referencing of in ear monitoring systems in the context of
tech-marketing talk about mics is due to the increasing popularity of
IEM's, making sure the prospective buyer appreciates that the mics will
work with those, too. Nevermind the obvious: mics do or do not work with
floor or in ear monitors according to the source signals, the
performer's competence, the venue and the sound system operators. Our
mileage varies according to vehicle, terrain and driver(s).

--
ha
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 10, 2004 9:03:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1goko47.dx9oftmcxu80N%walkinay@thegrid.net> walkinay@thegrid.net writes:

> Contemporary referencing of in ear monitoring systems in the context of
> tech-marketing talk about mics is due to the increasing popularity of
> IEM's, making sure the prospective buyer appreciates that the mics will
> work with those, too.

Speaking of polarity, I'll bet this is a place where it's extremenly
important to get it right, whichever way "right" happens to be. If the
ear bud is pushing your ear drum in while the sound that your voice
makes is pushing it out, the result is (at least partial)
cancellation. Pump up the level in the monitor until it finally
overpowers the opposing force and it gets hot enough to melt the
singer's ear wax.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 10, 2004 11:49:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1102719010.211052.180720@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> squeegybug@netspace1.com writes:

> I expect they could produce a nice sound if used with in-ear monitors
> rather than floor wedges, since the stage wash would be minimized.

I guess I didn't parse that sentence correctly in my mind. With in-ear
monitors and no monitors leaking into the mic, they probably work very
well in the house. But then most mics will.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 12, 2004 9:25:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ty Ford wrote:

> I've seen guys with the HF boost on for dynamics NOT even think about
> reducing the boost when trying condenser mics on vocals. You'd think it would
> occur to them. I've seen it too many times. They'd rather rip off an arm than
> change a vocal EQ. It's really important to rethink the EQ at that point and
> not get trapped by old work habits.

There are lots of pseudo-pro and amateur live sound people who do not
listen to what they are doing. They got the EQ settings from reading a
magazine or a Usenet post. They don't know why the setting may or may
not be useful and since they don't listen, progress will not be made.

--
ha
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
December 12, 2004 9:25:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hank alrich wrote:
> Ty Ford wrote:
>
>
>> I've seen guys with the HF boost on for dynamics NOT even think about
>> reducing the boost when trying condenser mics on vocals. You'd think it would
>> occur to them. I've seen it too many times. They'd rather rip off an arm than
>> change a vocal EQ. It's really important to rethink the EQ at that point and
>> not get trapped by old work habits.
>
>
> There are lots of pseudo-pro and amateur live sound people who do not
> listen to what they are doing. They got the EQ settings from reading a
> magazine or a Usenet post. They don't know why the setting may or may
> not be useful and since they don't listen, progress will not be made.


TGFEP (Thank God For EarPlugs...)
!