Members tightropewalker Posted December 24, 2009 Author Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 What are you using this mic with? The lower sensitivity is only a small amount lower, nothing like you describe. Right now I'm using it with the PA at our rehearsal studio, cannot remember the brand sorry. Anyway I don't think it's just the sensitivity, but the lower output too (8 to 10 db, according to the Audix website)...could it be a combination of those specs? I've read that this is a common problem with non-pro PA systems, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted December 24, 2009 Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 Depends on the mixer. It's about 7dB less than an SM-58, there's typically well over 20dB of surplus gain with an SM-58 with a typical vocal (sometimes 30dB), so 7dB of difference should not be a problem with almost any reasonable (even entry level) PA. Are you by chance going through an adapter or using an adapter cable to get to a 1/4" input? If so, there are other things at play too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tightropewalker Posted December 24, 2009 Author Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 Depends on the mixer. It's about 7dB less than an SM-58, there's typically well over 20dB of surplus gain with an SM-58 with a typical vocal (sometimes 30dB), so 7dB of difference should not be a problem with almost any reasonable (even entry level) PA.Are you by chance going through an adapter or using an adapter cable to get to a 1/4" input? If so, there are other things at play too. ...well, if this can help I always got troubles to be heard even with SM58 and Beta58. I'll try again the next time, see how it works.I don't think there's a problem with the mic since it's brand new, buyed in a store...just to be sure, is there a way to see if there's something wrong with my mic? Besides, what "things" are you refering to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted December 24, 2009 Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 Things like different input sensitivities for most unbalanced inputs, possible common mode issues with improper adapters, loss of potentially 6dB with differential versus unbalanced conversions, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TimmyP Posted December 24, 2009 Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 I've used the OM7 with even those ancient Mackies that had the gain control on the back. No problem at all. In fact one of the best vocal sounds I've heard was an OM7 through that old Mackie and a pair of original USA SRM450s (with no graphic EQ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tightropewalker Posted December 24, 2009 Author Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 I've used the OM7 with even those ancient Mackies that had the gain control on the back. No problem at all. In fact one of the best vocal sounds I've heard was an OM7 through that old Mackie and a pair of original USA SRM450s (with no graphic EQ). No need to boost the gain a lot? Well, don't know if this can be a reason, but the PAs I mostly use are faraway from a Mackie (even if it's old ehehe ). Besides I often have to play with "engineers" who barely know how to use IEMs...OM7 would be an insurmountable challenge!!! :poke: That's why I'm thinking about a preamp, just because I don't want to be forced to switch back to a 58 during a soundcheck 'cause they don't know how to manage the OM7. Any suggest? Thanks for help guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dboomer Posted December 24, 2009 Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 ...so if I plug my mic into a channel's 1/4" input instead of the XLR, I should be able to figure that out, am I right? I think it's illegal to plug a mic like an OM7 into a 1/4" input:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KF650SB1000 Posted December 24, 2009 Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 If you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted December 24, 2009 Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 I think it's illegal to plug a mic like an OM7 into a 1/4" input:) Probably in CA, should be everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tightropewalker Posted December 24, 2009 Author Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 If you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted December 24, 2009 Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 99.9% guess is that you do not need a preamp. You think you are having problems now with you guys not understaning things, add another (unneeded) device and just add to your troubles. You need to find out WHAT the real problem is FIRST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tightropewalker Posted December 24, 2009 Author Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 99.9% guess is that you do not need a preamp. You think you are having problems now with you guys not understaning things, add another (unneeded) device and just add to your troubles. You need to find out WHAT the real problem is FIRST. ...I hope so! Adding useless things is something I'd pleasantly avoid ehehe I was just wonderin' in case I need it...I'm not gonna buy without trying the best I can to make it work right and see if and what's wrong. The thing is, if it turns out that it's a PA problem where we rehearse (a pay-by-the-hour studio) and if it'll give me troubles on stage, I'll probably have to look at some device like that to fix it...right now I'd just like to know which one would be the best deal. @ agedhorse: as far as you know is there any "test" I can try to really figure out if there's a problem, or at least something to check out? The fact is that I always have to switch between PAs (we don't have our own anymore, so we use the ones at the rehearsal studio and whatever we find at the venues), so it's hard to have a reliable term of comparison, especially when you've to test an unconventional mic like OM7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted December 24, 2009 Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 The mic is not unconventional, it's just fine. If there is a problem, you need to identify the problem. What is the PA you are experiencing the problem with right now? Make, model everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tightropewalker Posted December 24, 2009 Author Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 The mic is not unconventional, it's just fine. If there is a problem, you need to identify the problem. What is the PA you are experiencing the problem with right now? Make, model everything. I'll check out at our next rehearsals. Talking about the OM7, I was refering to the low output, defined as "unconventional" by Audix itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dboomer Posted December 24, 2009 Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 So what mixer are you plugging into? This sounds like a simple gain structure issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted December 24, 2009 Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 I'll check out at our next rehearsals. Talking about the OM7, I was refering to the low output, defined as "unconventional" by Audix itself. Interesting marketing approach. I can't think of any reasonable mixer these days that does not have adequate gain for the OM-7. Having a little lower output level is not what I would consider unconventional, considering the application of that mic as a R&R vocal mic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OneEng Posted December 24, 2009 Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 I have tried the OM7, Shure Beta 58, SM 58, various AT stuff, and the mic I have preferred for live sound has been the EV ND767a for quite some time. When you use one of these beside the above mentioned microphones, the EV simply sounds better, warmer, and clearer that all microphones I have ever tried. You can generally get them on the net for around $100.00, and even cheaper used on ebay. If you can't find them (GC carries them btw), I swear it would be worth your time to purchase one just to see for yourself how good they really are. IMHO they are one of the best kept secretes in the industry. They are very affordable, and work wonders on the voice. As for condensers on the live stage, I think that it causes several issues in general. First, they feed back much easier than Dyn mics do. Second, they pick up lots of stage noise making the overall mix sound muddy. Third, (and I don't know this anymore for a fact since I don't use them on stage) I think they are more fragile. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dboomer Posted December 24, 2009 Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 Interesting marketing approach. I can't think of any reasonable mixer these days that does not have adequate gain for the OM-7. Having a little lower output level is not what I would consider unconventional, considering the application of that mic as a R&R vocal mic. Full agreement ... both points:thu: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dboomer Posted December 24, 2009 Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 As for condensers on the live stage, I think that it causes several issues in general. First, they feed back much easier than Dyn mics do. Second, they pick up lots of stage noise making the overall mix sound muddy. Let's nip this nonsense right here!!! Maybe one condenser feeds back in a particular situation that one dynamic doesn't but this is not a general rule. This is a gain issue. Most condensers have more output than most dynamics so if you plug one in for the other there is a difference in output level ... but no shift in feedback threshold (if the mics had the same frequency response and the same real pattern). If they were the same and the gain was compensated for (which it should be as standard operating procedure) there would be ZERO difference. In fact for any given situation (once gain compensated) the condenser could well be better. It's a case by case issue. As far as picking up more at distance... again, bunk! Once the gain is compensated they are identical given the same conditions as above. Also as above they may be better on a case by case basis. More delicate ... also a case by case issue. 30 year old condenser mics were never intended for live sound use. New units that are designed for live sound are probably on par with dynamics as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted December 24, 2009 Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 Condensers in general have wider high frequency response, and in some cases this has been taken to excess. Flat is not always a given with condensers either and in fact can be a big contributor to issues with condensers live. Because of this, and to some extent the generally wider patterns of condensers (a tradeoff for better uniformity of frequency response and reduction of proximity effect), as a general rule (with exceptions of course), condensers as front line vocal mics will tend to pick up more of what's in front of them and to the side than a more agressive pattern dynamic. This doesn't mean that a condenser can't be a good live vocal mic, but that for stages where things are getting pretty loud, it may not be the best choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dogoth Posted December 24, 2009 Members Share Posted December 24, 2009 Let's nip this nonsense right here!!!As far as picking up more at distance... again, bunk! Once the gain is compensated they are identical given the same conditions as above. Thank you for saying that. I have a co-worker who swears that condensers are better for people who sing/speak off the mic (more than 10 or 12"). I disagree and think it's all about pattern (the tighter the pattern the more GBF (as a general rule - depending on placment)). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dboomer Posted December 25, 2009 Members Share Posted December 25, 2009 This doesn't mean that a condenser can't be a good live vocal mic, but that for stages where things are getting pretty loud, it may not be the best choice. That generalization is foolish! True ... they are likely to have some different characteristics, but once you compensate for them you are back on even ground. And there are many sonic benefits inherent with condensers that are impossible with dynamics should that be appropriate for the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted December 25, 2009 Members Share Posted December 25, 2009 That generalization is foolish!True ... they are likely to have some different characteristics, but once you compensate for them you are back on even ground. And there are many sonic benefits inherent with condensers that are impossible with dynamics should that be appropriate for the situation. It's the combination of characteristics that make them less suitable in general for many loud R&R/metal/thrash/rap programs compared with the choices in dynamic elements available. There are several parameters that combine to make many of them not a great choice. There are some notable exceptions, like the BK-1, but I don't personally care for some of the HF rise in the 4k-10k range that can get overwhelmiing. Think B-87, and the wireless HH condenser element shipped w/ the AT-4000/5000 series. Way too bright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OneEng Posted December 25, 2009 Members Share Posted December 25, 2009 Perhaps you believe it to be "bunk", but I have found it to be true. I realize that newer "stage" condensers are not as bad as older mics that were designed for studio usage; however, the ones I have been exposed to didn't appeal to me. Perhaps it is a personal preference. I wanted to like the Beta 87a. I swear it. I figured at 2 1/2 times the price of my beloved EV ND767a, it was bound to have advantages ...... but it didn't ..... none what-so-ever. I have used them side by side and no amount of channel eq can make the Beta 87a as pleasant to use as the much less expensive ND767a IMHO. If you have different experiences, that is understandable, but there was nothing I could do even with the nice channel eq on my MixWiz to make the Beta 87a sound as good and behave as good (feedback or the general sound of the band) as the ND767a. I am very particular about the vocal setup in my band.... a kind of vocal tone snob if you will. Money is not an object with me (within reason), so I don't "go cheep" to try to save bucks when it comes to my PA. I have heard that there are some very high end mics out there that are indeed better than the ND767a, but I can personally assure you that the Beta 87a isn't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Scodiddly Posted December 25, 2009 Members Share Posted December 25, 2009 I wanted to like the Beta 87a. I swear it. I figured at 2 1/2 times the price of my beloved EV ND767a, it was bound to have advantages ...... but it didn't ..... none what-so-ever. That's why there are a large number of different mics on the market. Even Shure by iteslf has something like a dozen different live vocal mics. It's all application dependent. I'm not a fan of the 87 series either. The SM86 is pretty nice, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.