Search form

[shufflebeat]

As a singer I've used a variety of stage mics. My favourite for years (always welcomed by old school FOH guys) was a Beyer Soundstar II which I found made me sing better. It wasn't a "detail" or "air" thing or just being able to hear myself over the din, it just reacted in a way that encouraged me to experiment and stretch myself.

That's very interesting. And would you say the same is true of studio mics - that some make you sing better? And why? Because they sound good on your voice?

The point of that post is - "good" is not binary. Contributors tend to talk about either the technical specs of a mic or the experience of the FOH tech, as might be expected and is perfectly reasonable. I would argue the perspective and experience of the performer is also an important factor and there is not 100% overlap with the others.

It's also worth bearing in mind that mics do not sound "good" on their own, even on a particular voice. It's perfectly possible to make any one of these sound bad.

[Mike Stranks]

Wise words, Sir Shuffles... :clap:

[Sam Spoons]

IIRC the OP has a SM58 already.

He is a Madness tribute (and very good if his showreel is anything to go by) but no band, he works with backing tracks.

[Bob Bickerton]

and even "the best in the world" is only going to gain you a few dBs over a 58

Actually our A/B tests would suggest the OM7 gives you considerably more gain before feedback, which answers the original question.

Not saying that’s the best option for the OP, but in the numerous mics I have tried, nothing comes even close in terms of feedback rejection. Just saying.......

Bob

[ore_terra]

I haven't tried the OM7, but I can say that the feedback rejection in the OM6 is simply amazing.

most frequent comparison is with the beta 58 of my band's singer in rehearsals, and the OM6 performs considerably better in this aspect.

[shufflebeat]

...nothing comes even close in terms of feedback rejection. Just saying.......

Bob

Agreed, you really have to try to get the OM-7 to feed back. Luckily I know some terrifically persistent and tireless singers.

[Dave B]

Just doing a quick read on some of the suggestions.

With the OM7, it mentions that the low output means that you need a desk with a hefty amount of gain. Does anyone know how hefty that would typically be?

(I'm thinking that if the OP's small Yamaha desk doesn't have the grunt, this would be a non-starter)

The Senny 935 just about creeps in under budget. I do wonder if I should get one to try out. Just not sure if I should go for the 935 or 945 - I know the 935 is cardioid and the 945 hyper, so are they voiced differently? I find that the AKG D7 I have tends to be just a bit better sounding than the D5s we use.

[Wonks]

Well, the D7 is significantly more expensive than the D5, so you'd expect to hear an improvement. But it's not down to the polar pattern.

D7 = Supercardiod https://www.akg.com/Microphones/Dynamic%20Microphones/D7.html?
D5 = Supercardioid https://www.akg.com/Microphones/Dynamic%20Microphones/D5.html?dwvar_D5_color=Dark%20Blue-GLOBAL-Current#start=1
D5C = Cardioid https://www.akg.com/Microphones/Dynamic%20Microphones/D5C.html?dwvar_D5C_color=Dark%20Blue-GLOBAL-Current#start=1

[Bob Bickerton]

Just doing a quick read on some of the suggestions.

With the OM7, it mentions that the low output means that you need a desk with a hefty amount of gain. Does anyone know how hefty that would typically be?

(I'm thinking that if the OP's small Yamaha desk doesn't have the grunt, this would be a non-starter)

The Senny 935 just about creeps in under budget. I do wonder if I should get one to try out. Just not sure if I should go for the 935 or 945 - I know the 935 is cardioid and the 945 hyper, so are they voiced differently? I find that the AKG D7 I have tends to be just a bit better sounding than the D5s we use.

Haven’t had gain issues with the OM7 but as mentioned it is designed to be used on the lips which somewhat compensates for lower output.

Regarding the 945, it really does have a serious high end lift and would not suit a number of voices, so do try before you buy.

What sound are you looking for? Voice range?

Bob

[AlecSp]

The Senny 935 just about creeps in under budget. I do wonder if I should get one to try out. Just not sure if I should go for the 935 or 945 - I know the 935 is cardioid and the 945 hyper, so are they voiced differently? I find that the AKG D7 I have tends to be just a bit better sounding than the D5s we use.

Would it be just for you or for general purpose use?
If general purpose, then I'd recomend the 935 over the 945 like a shot, as the cardoid response makes them much more forgiving. I'd only use my 945 for a singer that had the right technique, where the monitoring arrangement was suitable, or if there was a situation that really called for the supercardoid response. So, my most frequent candidates are experienced singers using in-ears and drummers.
For anyone else, it's defo a 935.

If for you then, as with any mic, try before you buy, and compare, as that's the only way you'll ever know.

And specifically in response to your question, I don't find them voiced differently, but the response is definitely the defining attribute of each.

[Sam Spoons]

Looking at the OP's (lip-synched) showreel he appears to slightly cup the mic basket which, as we know, is almost guaranteed to make a 58 feed back. Am I right in thinking that the effect would be even worse with a super/hyper-Cardioid?

[Hugh Robjohns]

I note we're on page 3 of this interesting discussing, but the OP is yet to respond or provide any further direction as to his needs....

[Sam Spoons]

He seems to dip in and out of the forum, I'm sure he'll be back eventually.

[The Bogey]

I realize this thread has veered far from the original question so I don't know if anyone's still interested in this contribution… Anyway, here's my humble opinion.
Recently, I was asked to help choose mics for use in a highly problematic aka reverberant room, a small lecture hall of approx. 80sqm. The mics were mainly needed for speech and presentation but also singing. (Due to budget constraints further room treatment was not an option.) We did a shootout between the sE Electronics V7 and the AKG D-7 in which the former proved more feedback resistant than the latter. Both are dynamic mics with supercardioid polar pattern that cost a hundred or so quid. I also quite liked the sound of the sE given the price tag.
As for the money is no object category I own and am in love with the DPA D:Facto ii. However, my beloved black beauty caused major feedback when I performed at the NAMM Show (of all places!) and I had to swap it for the FOH's dynamic mic just before the gig (a Lewitt, don't ask me which model). I'm looking forward to getting my hands on the new Earthworks SR314 capacitor, though, if it really is as feedback resistant as they claim – despite having a cardioid pattern.

[AlecSp]

I note we're on page 3 of this interesting discussing, but the OP is yet to respond or provide any further direction as to his needs....

I realize this thread has veered far from the original question

About the same as most "what's the best vocal mic" threads, then.
The original question is so pointless, as are many of the simple "x is the best" answers.
But a lot of the other discussion is more meaningful.

Looking at the OP's (lip-synched) showreel he appears to slightly cup the mic basket

:headbang: I've lost count of the number of singers I've come across who still do this. It's one thing with the kids doing school shows.
Fact: while you think it makes you look like a superstar, it actually makes you sound way worse than you actually are (unless you actually want to sound like a nasal distorted mess, and makes feedback more likely.

So, a contextual and valuable answer to the original poster's request could be "the mic you're currently using, but use it properly" - he'll sound better and get less feedback, without spending any money.

[Peter H]

If I were the OP, I'd get an SM58 (or similar) AND an E945 (or similar?) and compare. There are so many idiosyncratic factors involved in live gigs, and that's before even considering the vocal channel/EQ etc. and the speakers.

[ef37a]

and even "the best in the world" is only going to gain you a few dBs over a 58

Actually our A/B tests would suggest the OM7 gives you considerably more gain before feedback, which answers the original question.

Not saying that’s the best option for the OP, but in the numerous mics I have tried, nothing comes even close in terms of feedback rejection. Just saying.......

Bob

Ok Bob, I was not aware of the OM7 but the site explains the reason for the high feedback rejection. Low sensitivity and so as someone else mentioned, you have to suck it. That improves the "critical distance" and so there is no magic involved although I am sure the mic has a flat frequency response as well which is vital for PA (well, B should have for the price!) One wonders how an SM58 might perform with a -6dB slug in the cable?

In my time there were two main factors that caused feedback and they were both the nut holding the mic!
One, they expected it to work held at waist level. Two they did not project.

Dave.

[AlecSp]

One wonders how an SM58 might perform with a -6dB slug in the cable?

Exactly the same, other than the fact you'll need to add back the 6dB elsewhere in the signal path. After all, gain is gain, no more and no less, wherever it is in the signal path.

[MOF]

Looking at the OP's (lip-synched) showreel he appears to slightly cup the mic basket which, as we know, is almost guaranteed to make a 58 feed back. Am I right in thinking that the effect would be even worse with a super/hyper-Cardioid?

Doing this makes the mic’ go into an Omni’ pickup pattern so I don’t think it will be any worse with a hyper-cardioid mic’ but clearly no good at feedback rejection.

[Bob Bickerton]

Sorry to labour the point - but have you actually compared the polar patterns of the two mics? If not, please have a look.

http://cdn.shure.com/specification_sheet/upload/82/sm58-specification-sheet-english.pdf

https://audixusa.com/docs_12/support_pdf/OM7_V2_0615.pdf

When I first saw the OM7s response, I thought it couldn't possibly be true.

Unless I'm reading them wrong here are some comparisons (2kHz up range):

OM7 @ 30º off axis = -9dB | SM58 @ 30º off axis = 0dB

OM7 @ 60º off axis = -18dB | SM58 @ 60º off axis = -5dB

OM7 @ 90º off axis = -21dB | SM58 @ 90º off axis = -5 to -10dB

and so on........

Whilst I'm still not sure the OM7 specs are indeed true - they are born out on stage.

And, by the way, the argument about attenuating an SM58 to match doesn't bear up - you compare the microphones with the gain set appropriately for the source and under those circumstances the OM7 provides more gain before feedback.

Anyone would think I'm an OM7 fanboy - actually I'm a real world fact fanboy ;)

Bob