The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Vocal mic with best rejection from rest of stage Dynamic Microphones
Old 27th July 2014
  #1
Lives for gear
 
AllBread's Avatar
 

Vocal mic with best rejection from rest of stage

Obviously want it to sound good, too, but looking for a vocal mic that cuts down bleed a lot more than the 58. Feedback isn't as much of an issue (I use in ears), but playing on small stages with 2 guitars, bass and drums the vocal mics are sounding like room mics. Haven't tried a hyper cardiod yet - I'm getting better at staying glued to the mic but between guitar, pedals, locking in with the other vocalist I do move around a little on the mic.

I'm more of a studio guy so would love any recommendations for a good sounding mic that has significantly better rejection than a 58 if one exists.

Thanks for any input and yes, I did use the search function but you know how that works on this site!

Ryan
Old 27th July 2014
  #2
Here for the gear
 
Greg's Avatar
 

The mics with the best rejection I have used are the Telefunken M80 and M81. Both also sound much nicer than than the SM58 on most sources. It's all my band has been using on stage and I use them for many studio duties as well.
Old 27th July 2014
  #3
Lives for gear
 
AllBread's Avatar
 

Thanks Greg, I was actually thinking about those two. I do plenty of live remote recording and a few artists (Grace Potter for one, I believe) have come through with those and I was very impressed - sounded like a condenser but with amazing rejection. Wish most stores return policies didn't exclude microphones!
Old 27th July 2014
  #4
Lives for gear
 

You may only be concerned about mic bleed because your in-ears are isolating them so well. Since you're a "studio guy" you might consider investing in a digital mixer that can time-align channels so the bleed is often beneficial, it'll also be great for monitor mixes in the studio at the very least, and it'll make live recording quite painless.
Old 27th July 2014
  #5
Here for the gear
Audix OM7.
Old 27th July 2014
  #6
Gear Head
I've heard DPA D:facto II against senheiser 965, shure ksm 105, neuman kms 105 and shure sm58. the DPA sounded better, with less rejection from all sides.

But the question might be more are you willing to pay that kind of money for a live vocal mic.

But in the end some cheaper mic's might suit some singers better in frequencie response than the more expensive ones. In a ideal situation you should make a test setup and ask your local audio company to rent some mic's for a day.
Old 28th July 2014
  #7
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
Beyer M88 and M69 work well in most cases for better rejection on stage, and are good utility mics for the studio.
Old 28th July 2014
  #8
Lives for gear
If the sound is coming from bouncing off the back wall, then all mics are the same. All except one ... The Crown CM310. Better at rejecting stage pickup than anything mentioned by at least 10 dB. They are hard to live with but there's a reason you see all the pop starts using Cm311 headsets and that is if you are using auto tune live anything you pick up from the stage will be affected. The crown mics act like differential mics in that respect.
Old 28th July 2014
  #9
Gear Maniac
 

Hands down Beyer M500.

Unfortunately, they are discontinued, fragile and impossible to repair... But that mic has the most rejection of anything in the universe.
Old 28th July 2014
  #10
Gear Nut
 
Audiobond's Avatar
 

Something to consider... You mentioned you "move around a little on the mic". Do you mean you are not always singing straight into the mic? Or do you mean that you step away from the mic temporarily to change guitar pedals etc...?

If you are looking for something with better off-axis rejection to minimize bleed, you really need to stay "glued to it", as you put it, or you will suffer more severe consequences in frequency response and sensitivity than you do now and the moves may well/probably will become more noticeable. Everything comes at a price. And not just always dollars.

If you are talking about your vocal mic becoming another drum overhead when you aren't standing in front of it, you can look into these:

Optogate.com

They are units that plug into the end of the microphone and are essentially gates that are triggered by an optical sensor that can tell if you are in front of the mic or not. Not in front of it, it turns off. I've only seen these around a few times, but they seemed to work well. Last time I recall seeing them in person was with The Doobie Brothers, if that is any endorsement.
Old 28th July 2014
  #11
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by dboomer View Post
If the sound is coming from bouncing off the back wall, then all mics are the same. All except one ... The Crown CM310. Better at rejecting stage pickup than anything mentioned by at least 10 dB. They are hard to live with but there's a reason you see all the pop starts using Cm311 headsets and that is if you are using auto tune live anything you pick up from the stage will be affected. The crown mics act like differential mics in that respect.
So true.

I guess AKG own the differoid technology now - I really hope they do something with it.

For anyone uninitiated - this concept is basically the same concept of noise cancelling headphones, except for microphones.


Where are your monitors? Hypercardiod is only a good idea if you use side fill - not wedges in front of you.

If you imagine the pickup zone of a cardioid like your SM58 is a sphere with a dead spot where the mic body is, which you aim at your monitor ... a hypercardiod is like one of those squished inwards (which makes it reject more from the sides) BUT, it picks up more from behind, and therefore tends to be worse for feedback with a wedge monitor.
Old 28th July 2014
  #12
Registered User
If you "move around a little" then the cardioid is more forgiving - you have to be glued straight on to a hyper cardioid. I hate them personally.
Old 28th July 2014
  #13
Lives for gear
 
dickiefunk's Avatar
Audix OM7
Old 28th July 2014
  #14
Lives for gear
 
musicl's Avatar
 

Have you tried a beta 58 or even a 57?
Old 28th July 2014
  #15
Gear Nut
 
Audiobond's Avatar
 

Kiwi, the OP says he uses in ears, so the rear lobe on a hyper cardioid wouldn't be an issue with stage wedges. But I do agree with you (as I mentioned in my previous post) that the tighter pattern would require him to stay on the business end of the mic more, lest the frequency pickup response and sensitivity suffer from singing into it off-axis.
Old 28th July 2014
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Aisle 6's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicl View Post
Have you tried a beta 58 or even a 57?
These would be way down the list for me when it comes to rejecting stage noise.

Audix OM7 or EV N/D967
Old 28th July 2014
  #17
Gear Addict
 

+1 on the 967, good sounding mic not terribly hard to work.
Old 28th July 2014
  #18
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post

Where are your monitors? Hypercardiod is only a good idea if you use side fill - not wedges in front of you.

If you imagine the pickup zone of a cardioid like your SM58 is a sphere with a dead spot where the mic body is, which you aim at your monitor ... a hypercardiod is like one of those squished inwards (which makes it reject more from the sides) BUT, it picks up more from behind, and therefore tends to be worse for feedback with a wedge monitor.
It is a good idea to familiarize oneself with the pickup pattern of the mics one owns/uses, that is certainly true, and good information to pass along.
A hyper-cardioid pickup pattern will have some pickup from behind, in certain frequency ranges, also true.
Therefore, when using a hyper-cardioid mic with wedges, the wedge(s) should be set at an angle of about 130 degrees (instead of 180 as with a cardioid mic).
If you are unable to slightly move your wedge(s) for some reason, then perhaps a hyper-cardioid mic is the wrong choice, although if you are familiar with the specs of the mic, it is also easy to notch out the specified frequencies that are picked up in the very narrow rear "spike".
IMHO and IME a hyper-cardioid mic will otherwise give more GBF and better rejection of unwanted noise on loud stages than will a cardioid. They do not have to be used only with side fills. Just as a cardioid mic has one null spot at 180 degrees, a hyper-cardioid has two nulls (in the horizontal plane) at 130 degrees, one on each side of the mic. Interestingly, I often see a cardioid mic being used with two wedges like this, which is obviously not ideal either.
As someone mentioned above, if using IEMs, then wedge angle is not an issue anyway, and in such cases a hyper-cardioid will have better rejection.
YMMV. Good luck.
Old 28th July 2014
  #19
KEL
Lives for gear
 

Most of the rejection we're discussing is the off axis type. On most stages the mics are pointing at the very stuff you don't want. On small stages you're not getting any/much help from the inverse square law either! It comes with the job at hand. A lot of the mics won't be significantly better on axis , or near on-axis than any others. Condensers, in a general sense, seem to make wash worse. Dynamics with their lower sensitivity can be better.

No matter what mic, lower stage volume and careful aiming of amps is a no-cost solution. Better mic technique too. If you're recording another act, often you're stuck with however they play & sing.

Delaying and trying to phase align onstage mics won't solve the problem, will cost you valuable time and you'll think you're fixing one bleed problem while overlooking another.
Old 28th July 2014
  #20
Gear Addict
 

The OM7 will give you great rejection and the lobe out the back is very small indeed so no problem using monitors directly behind. However if you have both hands full the OM6 gives you a little freedom to wander and still has very good off-axis rejection. If you chose the OM7 be aware it is a low sensitivity mic and will need plenty of gain.
Old 29th July 2014
  #21
Registered User
I've never figured out if the OM7 actually gives less protection from feedback, or just has that reputation due to it's poor sensitivity. If you just consider "gain before feedback", then sure - you can whack up the gain a lot more than other mics. But if it's gutless sensitivity, you have to use more gain to get the same level, so therefore no benefit.
Old 29th July 2014
  #22
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Audix OM6/7, Telefunken's, Beyer M88/ M69 all good options. I work with a Samba band in the UK and some members of Monobloco from Brazil, these are really loud on stage levels, loud enough that those not on ears use ear protectors and I often work with 58's and beta 58's without problems. I like the Beyers, not a fan of Audix vocal mics I'm afraid, the Telefunken's are great, however I don't own them and don't get to use them often, on their own they don't sound special, however, they sit in a mix really well.
Old 29th July 2014
  #23
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
I've never figured out if the OM7 actually gives less protection from feedback, or just has that reputation due to it's poor sensitivity. If you just consider "gain before feedback", then sure - you can whack up the gain a lot more than other mics. But if it's gutless sensitivity, you have to use more gain to get the same level, so therefore no benefit.
The OM7 was designed with low sensitivity in mind. At 0.8 mv/Pascal it is significantly lower than the rest of the OM series which are comparable with a 58 for example. What this doesn't tell you is the off-axis rejection.

Dave Rat has a great video explaining this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvUf...k7C9CvcM-9OH6w

Hope this helps.
Old 29th July 2014
  #24
Registered User
I don't get why low sensitivity is a good thing. It just means you need to crank the gain higher, causing more noise to get the same level. So yes - the published specs for rejection will be fantastic - because it's 'rejecting' stuff in *front* of the mic too. I guess if you have a screamer in a loud band, and a cheap mixer that clips easy, it would be a good choice ... no need for an attenuator.
Old 29th July 2014
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Wyllys's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
I don't get why low sensitivity is a good thing. It just means you need to crank the gain higher, causing more noise to get the same level. So yes - the published specs for rejection will be fantastic - because it's 'rejecting' stuff in *front* of the mic too. I guess if you have a screamer in a loud band, and a cheap mixer that clips easy, it would be a good choice ... no need for an attenuator.
Everything is a trade-off.

Lower the sensitivity and you tilt the balance in favor of close sound sources. Audix takes advantage of this by placing the element very close to the grill, allowing the source to be as close as possible.

Of course, this is likely why the OM's load up the element with humidity/moisture quicker than other mics.

So low sensitivity may or may not be "good", but in this case it is useful...
Old 29th July 2014
  #26
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
I guess if you have a screamer in a loud band, and a cheap mixer that clips easy, it would be a good choice ... no need for an attenuator.
High stage volume is where this mic shines, Wyllys has it spot on. Screamers are fine although I wouldn't put Anthony Kiedis in that category. Cheap mixers are not the way to go however as the mic needs a lot of gain to "bloom" so you need a good clean pre-amp. It's also great for quiet singers on a loud stage.
Old 29th July 2014
  #27
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
I've never figured out if the OM7 actually gives less protection from feedback, or just has that reputation due to it's poor sensitivity. If you just consider "gain before feedback", then sure - you can whack up the gain a lot more than other mics. But if it's gutless sensitivity, you have to use more gain to get the same level, so therefore no benefit.
Exactly. Amazing how many people have no understanding of gain
Old 29th July 2014
  #28
KEL
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dboomer View Post
Exactly. Amazing how many people have no understanding of gain
Don, did you watch the Dave Rat mic test with the test tone earbud stuff?
Old 30th July 2014
  #29
Lives for gear
 
Wyllys's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audixmicguy View Post
High stage volume is where this mic shines, Wyllys has it spot on. Screamers are fine although I wouldn't put Anthony Kiedis in that category. Cheap mixers are not the way to go however as the mic needs a lot of gain to "bloom" so you need a good clean pre-amp. It's also great for quiet singers on a loud stage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dboomer View Post
Exactly. Amazing how many people have no understanding of gain
The primary difference is the proximity of the element. I'd guesstimate the distance from the grill to the element of the OM7 to be 1/3 that of an SM58.
Old 30th July 2014
  #30
Registered User
Thanks for the explanation - makes sense now. How is for plosives and sibilance?
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump