Church Vocals - is this guy nuts?

[congaron]

Being a generalization that is untrue in some cases makes it unfair in those cases..it is an overgeneralized statement because it isn't based on anything that is certain in all cases. Your experience doesn't change that. Generally, a space shuttle will go into space...barring unplanned circumstances. Once it gets there the missions are all different. Saying every shuttle mission will fix a telescope in space would be incorrect...overgeneralized based on occasional experience. Here's what you wrote ""pretty much exactly what I have seen ... " I am sound guy, my job is to spend any money they give me, then get more."" The only thing accurate about this is that it's "pretty much exactly" what you've seen. And I'm not implying at all that that part isn't true (i believe you, in other words)...just that it's overgeneralized if we try to use it as fact.


I'm just saying why not keep it real and offer constructive advice, since it appears the decision is made. Simply taking pot shots at church doesn't really help anything.
Being jaded doesn't open your mind or anyone elses to a workable solution involving those mics. Defending your own jaded view is up to you...whatever. Your dad sounds interesting, but those are certainly not words to live by.

If the church would donate them to a semi-professional group growing up out of the membership...that's one possible good result. A church did this with an amplifier they gave to my band. Even selling them to buy something would be a possible thing to do now ...regardless of the original plan. Who cares about the possible motive at this point?

God bless!

-Ron

[nin4269]

I dunno. I see it from the OP point of view.

 

They have a batch of good, some would say great mics. The church I run sound for has three, on their lead vocals, and they strongly believe they're the best mic out there. So do two rock musicians I occasionally work with.

 

The OP seems to feel they've been working great for some time. So the question of "why spend a lot of money, if there's not an obvious problem we're trying to solve" seems like a reasonable one to pose. If you're spending someone elses money, I think motives are a legitimate thing to question. I mean you're right, we need to know more, but right now, I don't have tons of faith in the new sound guys rational.

[congaron]

IF the purchase can be stopped, Agreed. If not, moving forward is always the best approach. Hopefully everyone there can work it out. Nothing is more aggrevating to me than a bunch of servicable sound gear rotting in a closet. I've seen this...at the church I go to, I'm embarrassed to say. When I asked about using it, I was told "we really need to try and sell it." So there it sits. It has very limited reale value because of what it is, but the right (read cheap, or poor) person could get some use out of it. I ended up buying what we needed, because the time was short and the process was too long.

God bless!

-Ron

[ThudMaker]

I'm just saying why not keep it real and offer constructive advice, since it appears the decision is made. Simply taking pot shots at church doesn't really help anything. -Ron

The advice was constructive and a very possible answer to the question "why," particularly with the limited amount of information in the OP. No one is taking a pot shot at churches. It seems that you would rather people lose all sense of objectivity the minute they walk into a sanctuary. When that occurs, not only do soundmen throw good money after bad, but the congregation gets taken advantage of. Now explain to me again how we're not keeping it real.

[agedhorse]

... and I always though the mission of a church was to serve God and the people. How come this needs so much high tech these days? Wasn't it done effectively and less costly to the congregation before? This is not like a building with a very long lifespan... this stuff will be replaced in general within 5 years IME. That's the average lifespan of a church sound system these days.

[congaron]

The advice was constructive and a very possible answer to the question "why," particularly with the limited amount of information in the OP. No one is taking a pot shot at churches. It seems that you would rather people lose all sense of objectivity the minute they walk into a sanctuary. When that occurs, not only do soundmen throw good money after bad, but the congregation gets taken advantage of. Now explain to me again how we're not keeping it real.

 

 

 

Another pot shot not based on anything more than your personal opinion, which you feel is validated whenever someone else agrees with it. There are plenty of church buildings with superior sound systems and skilled soundpeople running them....PLENTY. Obviously this isn't your experience base, but that's not really consistent with what you are defending here is it?

 

Forget about it..you are right.

 

I actually attend church regularly because I understand why the bible says to do it and I agree. A gathering of believers not dependent on a building or equipment at all is certainly more in line with that. I guess my view has no foundation in reality or objectivity whatsoever. Re-read your own posts and tell me how you made a constructive contribution to the op's situation. I won't respond, but it will be interesting/entertaining to read more of your helpful advice and name calling (TPS seems like name calling to me). Fire away...

 

Thanks for an actual reality check Andy. I'm outa here.

 

God bless!

 

-Ron

[RobRoy]

God bless! -Ron

 

Sometimes it is not about equipment - it is about people. We have two people tha do sound in my church that have been doing it for a collective 35 years.

 

Neither of them has a clue what they are doing and the sound suffers because of it, even after extensive training on multiple occasions. But nobody wants to "fire" them so we put up with serious sound issues week after week, month after month, years after year. The band and music director just try to work around it. It works, for the most part.

 

The problem is tht in church the whole reason for doing what you are doing is different than in a "for profit" company.

[ThudMaker]

. . . . . . -Ron

 

My posts stand as they are.

[guitar7171]

IMHO 87 to 58 is a downgrade. Let's get rid of my Lexus and "upgrade" to a Hundai. 87s just sound better all around. to my ears 58s are much less clear, are less open on top to say the least. I have yet to hear a dynamic that sounds as good as a condenser.
Now some people say condenser may get some more feedback, especially if you have soft singers. 1 because their frequency response captures high frequencies that the dynamics just don't capture. Not a bad thing, and they can always be rolled off a little and still sound more open on top. Which is part of what captures the textures and nuances in the voices that have nice colors to them. Also the response pattern can be a little wider on condensers.
But as you said you are not having any issues with them then I think going to 58s would just dull the vocals up a bit. That being said I've had good sound guys get nice results from everything from 57s, to Neumans. Of course there is no "best mic" it depends on the voice and other factors. Like which is better BMW or Mercedes is a matter of opinion. But I think its fair to say that Mercedes IS better than Hundai. And Beta87 IS better than SM58. I can think of a couple of scenarios where the 58 would be better. I bet you could Hammer nails with the 58 and still use it, not so with the 87. Thats why so many clubs and reh studios have 58s, cuz the bands can beat the heck out of them and they still tick. Not because they are great mics. IMHO.
If a sound guy told me this I'd question his experience and knowledge. Maybe he was the typical bad soundguy that worked in the local club for 10 years but never really "learned" the skill and art of sound. Takes years of asking questions to experienced pros, always learning, and listening. There are plenty of crappy sound men who have been doing this for 10+ years and think they know what they are doing. But let the ears decide. I had a guy recently prefer to use his 58 to my Neuman KMS105. Wheras most knowledgable sound men are like, oh yea, definitly use the 105, thats an amazing mic. And comments like, with that mic the voice sounds so clear in the mix. Hey they like to stick to what they know, and heaven forbid they have to do extra work by re eq ing for a different mic. I had another guy who had no vocals and all keyboards Blaring through the monitors, when asked to pull back the keys in the monitor he admitedly did not know how. And this is on a real nice house sounds system in a nice club. Turns out the "soundman" was the owners son. Next time we were there I broungt my board and smaller and cheaper monitors and ran sound from the stage with noticably better results. Then other guys are always doing what ever it takes to make things sound as amazing as possible. Committment to quality and always improving varies widely and not allways directly proportional to experience. Just like musicians. Did I go off topic? Sorry. Keep the 87s and spend money on improving your weakest link, whatever that may be. Not just changing things around probably to get lesser results. I can't see how 87s could be your weakest link. Hey, they are good enough for Christina Aguilera.

D

[jbutler1982]

gutiar7171: I think you missed the issue a bit. Of course 87s sound better than 58. The point is, do they sound ~$340 better than 58s? ($60 for used 58, $400 for a used wireless 87).

 

The argument is not which one sounds better / worse. Of COURSE the 87 sound s better. The argument is whether they sound $320 better. So, they have four of them. So they are looking at either singing into all 58s and having a $1200 upgrade somewhere else, or singing into 87s.

 

I'd take the cash. 87s are better, but not that much better for the average listener.

 

This is why I wanted to get more information about the system before condeming the soundguy... to see if there was a weak link the chain that would need the $1200 more than the microphones.

[agedhorse]

There are some vocals the the 87 definately does NOT sound better on. Knowing why this is the case is part of understanding how to improve the vocal quality of sound reinforcement. Using the right tool for the job is the overriding consideration.

[ThudMaker]

So, recently I was talking to the new sound guy at church, and he mentioned that as soon as he could get approval he was going to replace all of the church microphones. This consists of four wireless Shure Beta 87a microphones and four or five wired Beta 87a's. He wants to replace them all with SM-58's. Am I wrong, or is this crazy? He was talking about how he just doesn't think that the 87 is suited to the rooms (the main sanctuary, or the small room by the gym where our praise and worship group plays) and that a 58 would do better . I pointed out that the 58 was cardioid while the 87 was supercardioid, and with the monitors toward the edges (the sides, I mean) of the stage in both rooms the 87 should provide better gain before feedback. He gave me kind of a nasty look and walked off. . . . . . . . .

According to the OP, these mics have been working just fine for years. It's the new guy who seems to be having issues. There's a reason a church has both wireless and wired models. I'm guessing the take on the wireless isn't going to look too good the next time they need to use wireless and only have wired 58s as replacements.

[guitar7171]

gutiar7171: I think you missed the issue a bit. Of course 87s sound better than 58. The point is, do they sound ~$340 better than 58s? ($60 for used 58, $400 for a used wireless 87).

The argument is not which one sounds better / worse. Of COURSE the 87 sound s better. The argument is whether they sound $320 better. So, they have four of them. So they are looking at either singing into all 58s and having a $1200 upgrade somewhere else, or singing into 87s.
QUOTE]

Agreed, in some situations the 58s might be more cost effective.
But he did not say that they were debating which one to purchase and weighing cost vs quality, or say they were doing it to sell the 87s to get money to improve the rest of the system.
They already owned the 87s, and the soundguy wants to replace because he believes they would actually be better. Which is the issue I was addressing.

Hey if you do sell them, email me. I could use 1 or 2 more for my system. Hey better yet, tell your sound guy you have a guy that will give ya an even trade for some wired 58s. hehe.