rukind.com

Grateful Dead Music Forum

A place to talk about the music of the Grateful Dead 

Chat about Equipment Info
 #111751  by JonnyBoy
 Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:23 pm
I think the vocal mics are the milabs condenser mics but they do look identical to the MD421. I have a sennheiser that looks like that milabs and I think it is an MD421, Imaybe 427 I dunno.
 #111754  by waldo041
 Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:40 pm
Dan Healy
Engineer - Grateful Dead
"The best sounding microphone available for live vocals. Don't leave home without it." (On the LC-25)
http://www.milabusa.com/artists.php


http://www.milabmic.com/historic_mics.asp


peace,
waldo
 #112138  by JonnyBoy
 Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:52 pm
I just bought a Telefunkin M-80. Anyone here use them? I bought it purely by the fact they seem to be used everywhere as the go to dynamic stage mic. Can't wait to try it out. I know Jeff C is using one in further...
 #112150  by Poor Peter
 Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:51 pm
JonnyBoy wrote:I just bought a Telefunkin M-80. Anyone here use them? I bought it purely by the fact they seem to be used everywhere as the go to dynamic stage mic. Can't wait to try it out. I know Jeff C is using one in further...
With leather?? Oh no wait, thats U-47... Sorry I couldn't resist :lol:
 #112342  by JonnyBoy
 Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:42 pm
I finally got a Telefunken M-80. It sounds way nicer than my other mics. I have been using a Sennheiser 835 at one place and a 935 at another and kinda got a sense that I liked those, especially the 935. Those mics sound great. I put it head to head at my house with a Sennheiser MD741, 835 also a Shure SM58. I liked the Telefunken most, despite the fact I just got it. Much more presence and good vocal tone, way clearer than the SM58 and a bit more than the 835 and 741. It seems like the others are loaded down with more mud if that makes sense. Don't know how well it does on stage yet, but I'm sure (hope) it will cut a bit better.
 #112356  by strumminsix
 Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:12 am
JonnyBoy wrote:It seems like the others are loaded down with more mud if that makes sense.
to be clear, the M80 just boosts TONS more. Check out:

e945
Image

m80
Image
 #112378  by jeffm725
 Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:13 pm
JonnyBoy wrote:I finally got a Telefunken M-80. It sounds way nicer than my other mics. I have been using a Sennheiser 835 at one place and a 935 at another and kinda got a sense that I liked those, especially the 935. Those mics sound great. I put it head to head at my house with a Sennheiser MD741, 835 also a Shure SM58. I liked the Telefunken most, despite the fact I just got it. Much more presence and good vocal tone, way clearer than the SM58 and a bit more than the 835 and 741. It seems like the others are loaded down with more mud if that makes sense. Don't know how well it does on stage yet, but I'm sure (hope) it will cut a bit better.
]

yup, I think I mentioned in another thread that I have really been digging those M-80's on the bigger festie stages and rooms we play where they are "house mics". When we do those gigs we try to be accommodating and use all consistent house mics to keep the job easier on the sound guys.(4 vocalists) Nobody balks at not using their own mic when the M-80 is in the stand. Otherwise we are a sound guy nightmare when we each bring our own mics.with a Senn 835, a senn 945, a EV N/D 767 and a Shure Beta 58 across the frontline. Ive seen more than one sound guy pull his hair out trying to get a good montior mix with us all being different. :-) Interesting about the boost strummin', I guess that could be a factor :smile: .
 #112383  by strumminsix
 Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:06 pm
jeffm725 wrote: Otherwise we are a sound guy nightmare when we each bring our own mics.with a Senn 835, a senn 945, a EV N/D 767 and a Shure Beta 58 across the frontline. Ive seen more than one sound guy pull his hair out trying to get a good montior mix with us all being different. :-) Interesting about the boost strummin', I guess that could be a factor :smile: .
I've read that a few times. But never understood it. As people have different tones I can't see how the same mic could be a benefit. Unless the room has a resonant frequency prone to feedback OR if it as overly tuned (eq'd room) OR if the person has a mic that doesn't work well for them. But in my experience if the singer has a mic best suited for their voice than running sound is a breeze.
 #112390  by JonnyBoy
 Tue Apr 10, 2012 4:14 pm
I took my time and tried out different mics the past year, the ones I thought I would like. And I was for sure very interested in all the hubub about it, Where there is smoke there's usually fire. Lots of folks really loving it. For me, the mic is exactly what I hoped for. It is adding clarity to my voice I couldn't get with a $100 dynamic. Some times our vocals sound like a mud slide. Like a deranged bassoon being played like a melody. Our band is loud, and to get our vocals to the right place we need to get some speakers and amps. They are falling in price too, I saw one go on ebay for $160 almost brand new.
 #112481  by jeffm725
 Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:44 am
strumminsix wrote:
jeffm725 wrote: Otherwise we are a sound guy nightmare when we each bring our own mics.with a Senn 835, a senn 945, a EV N/D 767 and a Shure Beta 58 across the frontline. Ive seen more than one sound guy pull his hair out trying to get a good montior mix with us all being different. :-) Interesting about the boost strummin', I guess that could be a factor :smile: .
I've read that a few times. But never understood it. As people have different tones I can't see how the same mic could be a benefit. Unless the room has a resonant frequency prone to feedback OR if it as overly tuned (eq'd room) OR if the person has a mic that doesn't work well for them. But in my experience if the singer has a mic best suited for their voice than running sound is a breeze.
I agree in theory strummin' but in real world practice I have found that most room provided sound guys and festival sound guys are hostile (and sometimes Lazy) by nature. (for different reasons, which I will get to in a minute)They don't care about what is best for your voice, they care about how much tweaking they have to do. I know right away when sound guys mention that they would prefer we all use the same mics, that they will not listen to our individual vocal characteristics and just set the gain structure and EQ the same way across all channels.

For festival sound guys, I can forgive this a little bit. Their job is very stressful in that they have very short changeovers in between bands and there is nothing but line signal checks (no sound check AT ALL) before a band hits their first note and are off and running. So they just want settings that they know will be in the ballpark acceptable from the get go, and the easiest way to do that is to work with known, consistent quantities through every act as much as possible.

For room sound guys, it is a different story. These guys are jaded beyond belief. In their eyes every band sucks and knows nothing about sound. In fairness to them, they are dealing with different bands every night and in many cases the guys in the bands think they are Mick Jagger, but actually DON'T know anything. After a few nights of dealing with self deluded muso's (we are a weird bunch by nature, let's face it) they start looking for ways to go on auto-pilot.
 #112484  by strumminsix
 Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:14 am
jeffm725 wrote:
strumminsix wrote:
jeffm725 wrote: Otherwise we are a sound guy nightmare when we each bring our own mics.with a Senn 835, a senn 945, a EV N/D 767 and a Shure Beta 58 across the frontline. Ive seen more than one sound guy pull his hair out trying to get a good montior mix with us all being different. :-) Interesting about the boost strummin', I guess that could be a factor :smile: .
I've read that a few times. But never understood it. As people have different tones I can't see how the same mic could be a benefit. Unless the room has a resonant frequency prone to feedback OR if it as overly tuned (eq'd room) OR if the person has a mic that doesn't work well for them. But in my experience if the singer has a mic best suited for their voice than running sound is a breeze.
I agree in theory strummin' but in real world practice I have found that most room provided sound guys and festival sound guys are hostile (and sometimes Lazy) by nature. (for different reasons, which I will get to in a minute)They don't care about what is best for your voice, they care about how much tweaking they have to do. I know right away when sound guys mention that they would prefer we all use the same mics, that they will not listen to our individual vocal characteristics and just set the gain structure and EQ the same way across all channels.

For festival sound guys, I can forgive this a little bit. Their job is very stressful in that they have very short changeovers in between bands and there is nothing but line signal checks (no sound check AT ALL) before a band hits their first note and are off and running. So they just want settings that they know will be in the ballpark acceptable from the get go, and the easiest way to do that is to work with known, consistent quantities through every act as much as possible.

For room sound guys, it is a different story. These guys are jaded beyond belief. In their eyes every band sucks and knows nothing about sound. In fairness to them, they are dealing with different bands every night and in many cases the guys in the bands think they are Mick Jagger, but actually DON'T know anything. After a few nights of dealing with self deluded muso's (we are a weird bunch by nature, let's face it) they start looking for ways to go on auto-pilot.
I have witnessed all you mentioned. At festivals, I just go with the show. Flat out.

And in bars when I realize that I am smarter about live sound than the soundguy I just do what they say cuz it's easier.

But in bars and venues with knowledgeable soundguy who will work with bands I open up a dialogue. As the band lead I am usually there first and setup. Often come with a stage plot, and setup in time so I can either work with him or be available to respond right away. Usually starts things off nicely.
 #112506  by zambiland
 Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:09 pm
strumminsix wrote:
jeffm725 wrote: Otherwise we are a sound guy nightmare when we each bring our own mics.with a Senn 835, a senn 945, a EV N/D 767 and a Shure Beta 58 across the frontline. Ive seen more than one sound guy pull his hair out trying to get a good montior mix with us all being different. :-) Interesting about the boost strummin', I guess that could be a factor :smile: .
I've read that a few times. But never understood it. As people have different tones I can't see how the same mic could be a benefit. Unless the room has a resonant frequency prone to feedback OR if it as overly tuned (eq'd room) OR if the person has a mic that doesn't work well for them. But in my experience if the singer has a mic best suited for their voice than running sound is a breeze.
I think you are underestimating the effect of the PA as a resonant system and with different vocal mics all going through the monitors, often the monitors are being eq'ed for the resonance of the mic/room combination, not for the aesthetic qualities of the vocalist/mic combination. If everyone only wanted themselves in their own wedges, it's not a problem, but as soon as you put the vocals across all the wedges, it gets pretty hairy pretty fast if everyone is using a different kind of mic. Especially if the band plays loud and wants to get the vocals up there with the rest of the instruments.

YMMV, and all that.
 #112539  by strumminsix
 Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:44 am
zambiland wrote:
strumminsix wrote:
jeffm725 wrote: Otherwise we are a sound guy nightmare when we each bring our own mics.with a Senn 835, a senn 945, a EV N/D 767 and a Shure Beta 58 across the frontline. Ive seen more than one sound guy pull his hair out trying to get a good montior mix with us all being different. :-) Interesting about the boost strummin', I guess that could be a factor :smile: .
I've read that a few times. But never understood it. As people have different tones I can't see how the same mic could be a benefit. Unless the room has a resonant frequency prone to feedback OR if it as overly tuned (eq'd room) OR if the person has a mic that doesn't work well for them. But in my experience if the singer has a mic best suited for their voice than running sound is a breeze.
I think you are underestimating the effect of the PA as a resonant system and with different vocal mics all going through the monitors, often the monitors are being eq'ed for the resonance of the mic/room combination, not for the aesthetic qualities of the vocalist/mic combination. If everyone only wanted themselves in their own wedges, it's not a problem, but as soon as you put the vocals across all the wedges, it gets pretty hairy pretty fast if everyone is using a different kind of mic. Especially if the band plays loud and wants to get the vocals up there with the rest of the instruments.

YMMV, and all that.
I did reference most of what you said. Yes, some mic's work better than others in rooms and yes some rooms are EQ'd and optimized (resonate freq, buzzy, feedback, etc) But I disagree with the practice of EQ'ing a whole room to a set of vocal mics. If done, that's horrible. With different timbers in voices, ranges, proximities, etc that's a recipe for disaster. You'd start with sweeping EQ's of the room, then drastic EQ's per channel. Can't see it sounding anything but over-processed.

In my experience, admittedly less than yours, both on stage and behind soundboards I find the keys to clarity are: more powerful mains and monitors than the room needs, mains up aimed in then up higher and pointed inward, neutral sounding mains and monitors, monitors up and facing the singers so they need less volume then a generic wash, proper mics and placement (cardiod w/mons behind, hyp/sup w/mons to side), and the best mic for the singer so I need to do the least amount of EQ by cutting until a slight boost is needed. Similarly, YMMV et cetera :)