Well, it looks like I'll be upgrading my vocal mic soon, and based on pricing and recommendations here on the forum, I was going to go with the Audix OM-7. From the specs on the websites it looks like the best for me.

Questions:

- I noticed that the OM-7 is not a preset on the T1. What do you guys use as a preset?

- I was going to ask if the difference between the -5 and the -7 was worth the money difference (I can afford either, but I don't want to throw away my money needlessly), but I may have to get the -5 if we have no T1 preset for the -7. Any other comparisons/comments would be appreciated, however. The OM-7 seems to be flatter, the OM-5, a bit of midrange/presence boost...correct?

Thanks to all!

... and the consensus is ...

Whatever works best for you.

I'm *not* being flippant with that answer. It really is that what mic and Preset and zEQ and paraEQ settings are "best" for one person may be totally "bleah" for someone else (to use a highly technical term ).

Sure, recommendations from others are helpful starting points and to narrow the initial selection, but the best approach is to work with a vendor/supplier who will let you try out a few mics and take the time to tweak the preset/zEQ/paraEQ settings for each mic side-by-side.

Hi, Tres...

I totally agree w/Dan... I have several that I use for different venues/occasions... EV767, EV967 & OM-5... I use the 767 for softer solo gigs, the 967 for louder solo gigs (967 seems to have a higher gain before feedback), and the OM-5 in a group situation... I don't like the sound of my voice as well thru the OM-5, but it cuts thru better in a group situation... YMMV :-)

Hi Tres,

There have been several discussions about the OM7 comparing it other microphones. Here are a few.

Audix OM7 Microphone for a Loud Band

Audix OM6 or OM7

OM7 vs Sennheiser e945

Are you still working as primarily a solo performer in front of your L1®? If so, you may not need to pay the premium associated with the OM7 to get the distinguishing feature designed for use on a loud stage.

quote:

Originally appears on the Audix OM7 page :
Designed, assembled and tested by Audix in the USA, the OM7 is a dynamic vocal microphone used for professional sound companies, front of house and mixing engineers, and high profile fixed installations. The OM7 is known for its ability to provide unprecedented gain before feedback on concert level stages without sacrificing sound quality. In addition, the OM7 is very resistant to feedback on extremely loud stages, and for performers who tend to “cup” the microphone with both hands.

Just for a sense of context to your comments - what kind of microphone are you using now? What are you looking to achieve with an upgrade?

When you were at the user conference in Little Switzerland - what microphone were you using in the videos?

Did you hear anything there you particularly liked?

The OM5 works perfectly for me. Solo, acoustic guitar and vocals, some folk, some blues, some ballads.

quote:

Are you still working as primarily a solo performer in front of your L1®? If so, you may not need to pay the premium associated with the OM7 to get the distinguishing feature designed for use on a loud stage.

ST: I'm still working as a solo artist in front of the L1. I realize I may not need to pay for the OM-7 (hense this thread), but from the descriptions on websites, the OM-5 is not a cheaper version of the OM-7 - it's actually voiced differently.

quote:

Just for a sense of context to your comments - what kind of microphone are you using now? What are you looking to achieve with an upgrade?

I'm currently using an SM58. I don't really have any gain before feedback issues (though I may in the future with larger and outdoor gigs), I was simply looking for something of a better sound quality than the 58. Tom said he liked the '7 best, and that he had a slightly nasally voice (which I do too) so I thought I'd start there.

I don't know what I was using in LS, we could probably find out. It may have been a '58, since I was using my T1, and it was already set for that. Seems to ring a bell, now...

I haven't heard anyone address the fact that the T1 has no OM-7 preset. That may make my choice for me, at least regarding the '7.

Bottom line: I figure anything's better than a '58, and there are one or two mics that seem to stand out on these forum discussions, so I'm trying to narrow it down from there. A few of them are more than I care to spend.

quote:

I totally agree w/Dan... I have several that I use for different venues/occasions... EV767, EV967 & OM-5... I use the 767 for softer solo gigs, the 967 for louder solo gigs (967 seems to have a higher gain before feedback), and the OM-5 in a group situation... I don't like the sound of my voice as well thru the OM-5, but it cuts thru better in a group situation... YMMV :-)

Dandyman: Based on the Audix sales text, it would make sense that the OM-5 cuts through. It was meant to do just that. But it looks like the OM-7 wasn't designed with that in mind, so it's going to sound different (which is why I was leaning slightly toward it).

ST,

Thanks for the links above. It really looks like the OM-7 is NOT the mic for me. I don't sing really loud (I can, but am trying to learn not to). I'll check into the OM-6 now. My voice is basically tenor, and all the baritones seemed to like the OM-5.

Anyway, thanks again you guys for all the info!

PS: I did a sound check today with my system for the gig Sunday (at the gig location), and had an opportunity to try the SM87A, with preset. It did sound different than my '58, but not particularly better as I could tell, and I had to crank the trim up substantially for the same apparent volume.

Well,

After reading ST's links and the related posts, and then re-reading the tech descriptions on various vendor's websites, I think the OM-5 might be the way for me to go afterall. I initially thought it might sound midrange heavy (read: muddy), but they actually say that the midrange is tailored for increased clarity and presence. I think that's probably what I'm looking for, and the increased gain-before-feedback is icing on the cake. I briefly checked out the OM-6, but it's about as expensive as the '7, and the '5 looks better.

I hate shopping for this stuff...

Hi Tres,

Though I haven't used the OM7 I have been using the OM5 ever since Lil' Switzerland.

The OM7 among other things, if I remember correctly, has about 5 dB more off axis rejection. The off axis rejection translates to "must stay directly in front of the mic".

I believe either mic can be EQed to compliment your vocal.

In my opinion based on what I know and what I read, the OM7 would be the choice if you were wanting to play as loud as possible, maybe with other players in a band situation. The OM5 is what Cliff's band used, and if you recall they were extremly effective in a lively room.

I am very happy with the OM5. I like the clarity, and the gain before feedback.

O..

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Oldghm,

Thanks, O, I appreciate the confirmation.

And yes, that's the impression I (finally) got from my research; the OM-7 is for minimal feedback at very high sound levels.

quote:

I have been using the OM5 ever since Lil' Switzerland.

Hi Tres,
It's funny how timing works. I purchased and tried out a new OM-5 for about 10 minutes and brought it with us to Lil' Switzerland, possibly to see if it made sense for anyone else. I'm glad it worked out "O".. I also purchased a wired EV767, that worked very well for Billie and I, so I went on and purchased the RE-2 wireless versions of the EV767 (at considerable expense), because our venue called for wireless performance.

Part of my decision, was the OM-5 was not available in a wireless model and although it is a very nice mic, my preference is still the RE-2 EV767.

In the wired models of each mic, they are both similar in pricing and I like them both considerably more than my old Sure SM58. Sorry AJ, but we all have a preference.

quote:

Bottom line: I figure anything's better than a '58

Gezzzzzzzz......it seems everyone is "bashing" the SM 58 even after using it for years! I am going to call Shure anc tell them they should go into bankruptcy court because their sales "must" be down due to this sudden "bashing of the SM58". I love my SM58.In fact I think I may marry it! It has been faithful to me for almost 40 years. Nice rich tone,( which wanna be singers call "muddy") and by using proper EQ it can be made to sound anyway you want it to sound. The only other mic I would even "consider" is the EV767a. I have an old EV ND 257 and it still sounds great.) Dont' change for the sake of "change". Just remember.....if you can't sound good thru a "58" then better stick to playing backup. LOL!
Oh am I gonna hear about this!!!!!!!
Keep singing and having fun!!!!!

quote:

Sorry AJ, but we all have a preference.

HI Joel!!!!!!

How have you been? I may be up your way within a few weeks. Of course we all have a preference in mic's. In fact because of you I am going to buy an EV 767a wired. IF I like it I will then buy the wireless. Carla sings thru and Ev 367s and loves it. I have heard you sing thru you EV and you sound great. You could sound good singing thru a tin can.Everyone has their favorite and I have learned not to knock anyones equipment. It's personal. Drop me a line and say hello once in a while.

Keep singin folks!

quote:

Originally posted by AJ:

quote:

Bottom line: I figure anything's better than a '58

Gezzzzzzzz......it seems everyone is "bashing" the SM 58 even after using it for years! I am going to call Shure anc tell them they should go into bankruptcy court because their sales "must" be down due to this sudden "bashing of the SM58". I love my SM58.In fact I think I may marry it! It has been faithful to me for almost 40 years. Nice rich tone,( which wanna be singers call "muddy") and by using proper EQ it can be made to sound anyway you want it to sound. The only other mic I would even "consider" is the EV767a. I have an old EV ND 257 and it still sounds great.) Dont' change for the sake of "change". Just remember.....if you can't sound good thru a "58" then better stick to playing backup. LOL!
Oh am I gonna hear about this!!!!!!!
Keep singing and having fun!!!!!

I am in no way, "wanna be singer," I can hang with just about any level of singer. I can tell you from personal experience + L1 use why I and other bash sm58's......

Although they WERE the top live performance mic choice for many years, they have been elipsed in both price and quality of tone reproduction. They used to be the live standard, now up to date soundmen don't even use them as the stock go to mic.

My personal opinion of the shure 58 with 00 eq, which is what I always use, is that for a male voice they are thin on top, make high notes sound tinny piercing and sound a bit muddy in loud situtation where you have to eat the mic for best gain before feedback. I've found with a 58, add room reverb to to muddyness it produces when you eat the mic and the resulting vocal is often very hard to understand no matter how good your diction is.

IME, they are beaten badly as far as feedback rejection and overall sound by a many mics in the same price range. Also, IME, the shure58 flat, colors the vocal tone A LOT in all ranges. Frankly telling someone to stick to backup because they can't sound good, or more likely don't like the sound of their voice through a 58 is silly.

If you really want to hear how much line up a series of mics into a digital recorder with no effects and sing the same passage over and over again. It will quickly become apparent which mics color the vocal tone and or, are weak at reproducing certain frequency ranges.

I myself, didn't hate the sound of my voice through a 58, but, as I have sensitive ears for voice colors and tones, knew something was not quite what I wanted and wasn't the fault of my singing, it was the reproduction of the mic.

Since going through other mics and arriving at an EVND976, I've found a mic that delivers my voice closest to as I hear it without a mic, but then amplified. I do not use EQ or effects live, so the mics reproduction qualities are very important to me.

I have a shure 58 & beta58, both are nice mic, but neither could cut it in proper uncolored reproduction or the ability to attain max volume without feedback.

I'm not saying it's a bad mic, it's just been beaten by ever prgressing technology.

Many singers stick with it and love it, if for no other reason that it is the mic they are the most used to using.

Hey Tres - Don't let the fact that there is not a preset on the T1 sway your choice. I use a Sennheiser E945 on the EV 767 preset. It works for me. On that note I have used OM5's They were nice. Both Martha and myself float between EV's & Sennheiser's. We are on the Sennheiser boat right now. Roy

Ric

This is why we love this forum. We all can have our own opinions. Enjoy whatever mic you decide to sing through. Happy days everyone!

At the 2006 fall conference in Ashland Mass. Ken @ Bose asked me to do something on vocal mics.

I knew I was not smart enough to talk tech, and we are all so opinionated, and personal preference, brand loyalty, what my favorite star uses on tour and a shopping basket of other things determines what we think we like best, so I decided to do a live comparison of several mics from cheap Nada to the highly prized Neumann KMS 105.

We set up 4 L1 Classics, set the preset for the chosen mic, or Handheld high gain normal, if there was not a preset. There were a total of 7 different mics, all hot, at the same time.

All gain, EQ and volume knobs were set to flat or the 12:00 position. The desire was to treat each the same as the others.

Now if the Bose engineers and Cliff had all done their job correctly then there should be much similarity in the sound coming from all the different mics. Yes?

Were they all the same? Well no, but.... they were more the same than different, at least to my ears, and close enough that Cliff had a big sigh of relief because this simple test was one that had not been tried by The Bose folks.

What this showed was the L1 system is amazingly true to flat response when no EQ is used. The presets bring the michrophones back to the flat EQ with the preset, regardless of the curve the manufacturer might have built in.

So..... while we all have preferences and some mics just work for our vocal better than others, it is entirely possible to get very similar results with a variety of mics.

On that day, the mic that caught everybody's attention was the Sennheiser E945.

Strangely enought the warmth of the E945 that I liked so much at the time is not the sound I have gravitated to, as time has passed. The more I sing through the L1 the more I like the clean, natural sound of my voice, but if I want more warmth I can still get it, even with the OM5. It's just a matter of EQ.

With the L1 you can get good tone with a multitude of mics.

It is my opinion, and nothing more than opinion, that the biggest single factor in choosing a mic for use with the L1 is its resistance to feedback, so the quality, hypercardioid mics win for this reason.

No feedback issues just makes the job easier.

O..

Thanks to all!

Re: SM58's, I'm not bashing them. But I do tend to agree with much of what was said re: tone. I'm keeping my '58, but I need a second mic and thought I'd try to upgrade.

The 58 is a '68 Camaro. It's a great car, but look at all the great cars that have come out since '68. You keep the Camaro around for weekend drives, but you have something newer for a daily driver.

At least that's how I see it.

Tom"

To quote Ronald Regan"

"There you go again"......LOL!