Vocal Microphones, what are you using?

[Phil Starr]

1 hour ago, LawrenceH said:

I've done sound a couple of times at tiny, intimate gigs for a very good 'name' singer who favours the Beta 58. She really knows that mic and uses the proximity effect well. She makes that mic sound expensive! The downside at the desk is that such technique requires better, more transparent compression than the tiny gig rig provides and I have to ride her fader to tame the dynamics - better inbuilt compression is another thing drawing me towards a small digital mixer.

 

The EV mics are intriguing - iirc the Shure dual diaphragm mics like the KSM8 are supposed to have greatly reduced proximity effect, I'd like to try them but they're pretty spend-y!

 

Yeah, I think asking someone who has used the SM58 to change mics would be like asking Brian May to change guitars

 

I have to say though that if anyone is going to spend a digital mixer is probably going to make a bigger difference to the sound than changing the mics. My mixer is pretty basic and I've got four band parametric eq, compression, gating, reverb delay and detuning on every mic channel, plus a lot of stuff I've never even looked at. The pre's are audibly better than my old Yamaha MG desk too. Tweaking eq is much more intuitive and best of all I can save anything that works well. 

 

I'm intrigued by the Shure SM86, it's a lot cheaper than I was expecting, cheaper than the E935. I'm wondering if I should have looked at that first.

 

 

[Al Krow]

Just now, Phil Starr said:

 

Yeah, I think asking someone who has used the SM58 to change mics would be like asking Brian May to change guitars

 

I guess I'm fortunate with my lead vox then, haha!

 

The two of the three female lead singers who have been using SM58s were both completely sold on our live performance experience of Set 1 being plagued by feedback, and then Set 2 being feedback-free with just one change to the set up at the interval: swapping-out their SM58 for my AKG D7S!

[Phil Starr]

31 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

swapping-out their SM58 for my AKG D7S!

Is this a bassist thing, carrying spare mics for the rest of the band

[Steve Browning]

2 minutes ago, Phil Starr said:

Is this a bassist thing, carrying spare mics for the rest of the band

Possibly. I carry all sorts of spares and never need them myself. 

[Al Krow]

3 minutes ago, Phil Starr said:

Is this a bassist thing, carrying spare mics for the rest of the band

 

Haha no - it's was my mic for my occasional BVs and audience chat!

 

I just swapped mine with the lead singers - obvs for BVs the SM58 can sit lower in the mix than you would want your lead vox mic to be set at. As mentioned a little earlier in the thread, we measured the difference and the AKG D7S gave an additional 6dB headroom (in terms of desk settings at least) before feedback kicked in vs the SM58.

 

 

Edited November 26 by Al Krow

[Stub Mandrel]

I've been encouraged to go supercardiod. I have a Superlux PRA D1n which was dirt cheap.

 

Just read some reviews and consensus seems to be it's comparable with an SM58 beta.

 

So... I'll pack it with my SM58 and try it. My I only do bvs anyway (although I was singing the fifth in three part harmony tonight, for the very first time at a rehearsal!)

[Phil Starr]

On 26/11/2025 at 20:55, Stub Mandrel said:

I was singing the fifth in three part harmony tonight, for the very first time at a rehearsal!

How posh is that.😀

 

I'm jealous 

[Stub Mandrel]

8 hours ago, Phil Starr said:

How posh is that.😀

 

I'm jealous 

 

Would be posher if I was better at it!

 

But good on Steve who made us try.

[Lozz196]

I used to have an SM58 but at one gig used a Behringer XM8500 and preferred it with my voice, I only do backing vox mind, maybe it’s not an ideal mic for lead vox but it works fine for my uncultured yelling.

[Aliwobble]

On 02/12/2025 at 09:20, Lozz196 said:

I used to have an SM58 but at one gig used a Behringer XM8500 and preferred it with my voice, I only do backing vox mind, maybe it’s not an ideal mic for lead vox but it works fine for my uncultured yelling.

The XM8500 is a truly nasty mic, but it is good to see that you have found its niche!

[Chienmortbb]

1 minute ago, Aliwobble said:

The XM8500 is a truly nasty mic, but it is good to see that you have found its niche!

 BBC Sound people often prefer the XM8500, if given a choice between the two. I suspect it is easier to EQ for radio/TV sound. 

[Aliwobble]

Interesting...

I've always found them a bit thin and scratchy sounding. Unless I'm thinking of a different Behringer SM58 knock-off. 

[LawrenceH]

16 minutes ago, Aliwobble said:

Interesting...

I've always found them a bit thin and scratchy sounding. Unless I'm thinking of a different Behringer SM58 knock-off. 

You're not, they are!

[Lozz196]

41 minutes ago, Aliwobble said:

The XM8500 is a truly nasty mic, but it is good to see that you have found its niche!

Matches my truly nasty voice nicely, lol.

[Phil Starr]

Interestingly (to me anyway) I tried a mic shoot out with one of my bands who were using some ..... less than good mics. They included an SM58 and a XM8500 as well as a Samson of some sort. generally the band preferred the 8500 to the SM58 though I did have to resolder the Behringer to make it work! The Behringer does have a brighter sound and the resonance peaks are in a different place which could sound tinny if untamed. The shure had a lot less handling noise but the Behringer rejected feedback slightly better. Shockingly there are Three Behringer mics below the XM8500 as well as the XM1800 which is sold in packs of three. The singers husband went out and bought a Shure KSM9 sadly he didn't ask me and I didn't have phantom power at the time so it was never used in anger.

[LawrenceH]

One thing I've long suspected about mics in live PA is that if you overlay the mic frequency response over the speaker response, including info about how the latter behaves around crossover, you'll be able to see which mics will play nicer. Even more so if you could see time-based plots and distortion info. I've often thought a mic with a tight peak somewhere around the crossover frequency brutally highlights all the deficiencies of that speaker. From memory the Shure peak is that little bit broader, higher and smoother than the Behringer. Likewise the slightly humped response of a lot of PA tops in the upper bass can play really crappily with mic proximity effect.

 

Years ago I remember any boost centred around 3-4.5k always sounded awful with the common two-way speaker designs, because the woofer would be in breakup up that high and the mediocre tweeters would be straining to reach that low. Plus the ear is quite sensitive around there. Half-decent speakers nowadays tend to cross a bit lower, plus the crossovers are better, buying a bit more space.

 

Just my own anecdotal experience, nothing systematic.

[Phil Starr]

25 minutes ago, LawrenceH said:

One thing I've long suspected about mics in live PA is that if you overlay the mic frequency response over the speaker response, including info about how the latter behaves around crossover, you'll be able to see which mics will play nicer. Even more so if you could see time-based plots and distortion info. I've often thought a mic with a tight peak somewhere around the crossover frequency brutally highlights all the deficiencies of that speaker. From memory the Shure peak is that little bit broader, higher and smoother than the Behringer. Likewise the slightly humped response of a lot of PA tops in the upper bass can play really crappily with mic proximity effect.

 

Years ago I remember any boost centred around 3-4.5k always sounded awful with the common two-way speaker designs, because the woofer would be in breakup up that high and the mediocre tweeters would be straining to reach that low. Plus the ear is quite sensitive around there. Half-decent speakers nowadays tend to cross a bit lower, plus the crossovers are better, buying a bit more space.

 

Just my own anecdotal experience, nothing systematic.

I think that is right, the test was through Yamaha Club series speakers S112IV if my memory serves, and these had a real midrange peak due to the Eminence Delta's they used. At the time they were so much better than the Peveys everyone else used I quite liked them but they had to have affected what we were doing so hardly a fair test. My own anecdotal experience

[LawrenceH]

Hah funny you should say that! I had the club stage monitors and they were miles ahead of the awful 15" tops that were common - including a lot of those early moulded cabs. Fired them up a few years later next to my home-brewed 12" tops made using REW/Bagby spreadsheet and decent components, and couldn't believe how coloured they were in comparison. 

[PaulThePlug]

Budget?.. Son has a Behringer 'Bang-4-Buck' XM8500, reasonable, was purchased mainly for use with the Boss Vocoder