ef37a wrote:...I was just looking for the "Amazing New Principle" that gave the OM7 its feedback immunity and found there isn't one. It is a very low sensitivity mic that requires very close use* and necessitates the singer gives it some. The tighter polar pattern helps as well.
Not knocking the OM7! Super mic I am sure, just works by principles known for a century.
Attenuating a "lesser" microphone would then require very close working. Even a 58 could overload some mic pres in such a situation with some singers?
I think my statement "mics are but one factor in feedback control" still stands?
All kind of correct (apart from your artistic use of question marks, but my daughter tells me I must own my own pedantry and not judge).
As a regular user I concur with Bob B's observations and conclusions. I don't think Bob is suggesting there is any magic ingredient but rather that Audix have prioritised GBF in response to the modern stage environment and have manipulated the existing variables very successfully.
As mentioned before I like to turn the OM-7 input gain up and sing gently. If you are suggesting that this would compromise the GBF properties, it doesn't (in comparison with '58, e935, etc.).
It also sounds good.
I would qualify the suggestion that a singer needs to be in direct contact with the OM-7 to be effective, that's an exaggeration. The range is dramatically reduced but normal rules regarding movement on and off the mic still apply.
In real life, if you've probably chosen the OM-7 it's because the stage is loud and in those cases folks are belting into the mic and performance is less nuanced.