audix om3 v's shure beta 58
Hugh Fox
live vocal use. i have heard the Beta 58 and understand why people
might not like it. What are the other options apart from shure and
audix.
cheers,
Hugh
George Gleason
for less money there is the aKG d-880 and the CAD 195
for more money try a Beyer m88 sennheiser 865 Neumann 105 and the audix
vx-10
Blind Joni
>> audix.
>> cheers,
>> Hugh
Sennheiser 800 series are pretty well liked.
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637
Ole Johansen
gig with a customer who had just bought the Beta 58 elsewhere. Did a direct
AB test with the EQ flat. The Audix won hands down. You don't have to do
much EQ'ing with the audix. It sounds great out of the box.......
Ole
"Hugh Fox" <hugh...@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:884cca1f.04113...@posting.google.com...
Hugh Fox
thanks for the replys,
i heard a beta 58 being used on male vocals a few weeks ago and it
appeared to have a more defined bottom and top end than an ordinary
sm58 allowing the vocal to sit on top of the mix that bit more. it
opened my ears to the fact that their may be life beyond the sm58 for
live vocal use. i was looking at buying something around the beta 58
price range and for the same money there is the audix om3, don't think
i would get the chance to review either so i am looking for guidance,
thanks again,
hugh.
John Halliburton
"Ole Johansen" <o...@lydcompaniet.no> wrote in message
news:cok2vm$25c$1...@news.tdcnorge.no...
> Personally I'm a big Audix fan and have a few om 3's..... Killer mic. Had
a
> gig with a customer who had just bought the Beta 58 elsewhere. Did a
direct
> AB test with the EQ flat. The Audix won hands down. You don't have to do
> much EQ'ing with the audix. It sounds great out of the box.......
My conclusions exactly. I own a pair of OM7 mics, and the difference in
just how the voice sounds more like the person using it was instantaneous
when I first hooked one up.
Best regards,
John Halliburton
Mike T.
I'm a sound tech, not a singer, and I work mostly smaller shows with
monitor wedges. Few of my performers have in-ear monitors.
Given a choice between the Beta58 and the OM-3xb, I would use the
Audix almost every time because of its better monitor rejection (gain
before feedback). It also has a less pronounced bump at 5K, a smoother
high end, and slightly less pronounced proximity effect with a
smoother low end. I could say the same for the Sennheiser e835 and
e845, and the AKG D880.
There are a few voices, mostly tenor rock 'n roll vocals that need to
cut through a dense guitar mix, that might benefit from the Beta58.
However, to my ears, most voices sound screechy on the Beta58.
Mike T.
Arny Krueger
news:gE4rd.1005466$Gx4.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> Hugh Fox wrote:
>> i am looking to spend money, want to get a slightly sharper mic for
>> live vocal use. i have heard the Beta 58 and understand why people
>> might not like it. What are the other options apart from shure and
>> audix.
>> cheers,
>> Hugh
> for less money there is the aKG d-880 and the CAD 195
The CAD c195 differs from the OM3, Beta 95 and D-880 in being cardioid,
not hypercardioid.
> for more money try a Beyer m88 sennheiser 865 Neumann 105 and the
> audix vx-10
The VX-10 like the C195 seem to be out-of-place here because they are
cardioid, not hypercardioid like all the rest.
George Gleason
It is a good quality vocal mic and deserves a listen
and I believe you use several(or the previous version cad 95) and are
happy with them
g
michael gaster
>
> thanks for the replys,
>
> i heard a beta 58 being used on male vocals a few weeks ago and it
> appeared to have a more defined bottom and top end than an ordinary
> sm58 allowing the vocal to sit on top of the mix that bit more. it
> opened my ears to the fact that their may be life beyond the sm58 for
> live vocal use. i was looking at buying something around the beta 58
> price range and for the same money there is the audix om3, don't think
> i would get the chance to review either so i am looking for guidance,
>
> thanks again,
> hugh.
I am a huge Audix fan here,any question to how they sound... I can send you
desk recordings from shows that sound as good as alot of studio stuff you
will hear...
also what kind of price on the OM-3 and on the B58 have you found??? I can
probably help you out. and get you in to an OM-5 for the same money... a
matter a fact I have 2 OM-5's here that have probably 12 hours on them...
email me
--
Michael Gaster
Live Performance Solutions Inc.
Blind Joni
>opened my ears to the fact that their may be life beyond the sm58 for
>live vocal use. i was looking at buying something around the beta 58
The mic choice should depend on the voice. I find that singers with a gravely
or rough tone are better served by a condensor or more "hifi" sounding mic..and
the 58 and B58 seem to not be the good choice as they accentuate the upper
midrange and sound "blaring" to my ears.
I personally prefer Audix mics for almost any application over a B52, B56, 57,
58,B57, B58 or a B87...just sounds better for my tastes.
YMMV.
Tim Padrick
"John Halliburton" <j_chall...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:9Gkrd.35371$Qv5....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
I also use the OM7. You can usually get them used on eBay or from RatSound
(or maybe Mr. Gaster?) for $125 to $150. Being a comparatively neutral mic,
I find that they work well on voices of all types.
I had a couple of OM5s for a while. They have nasties just as the SM and
Beta do, they are just different nasties. I've never use an OM3, so I
cannot comment. Other have said that they are more colored but cleaner than
the OM5.
The Sennheiser E835 is a nice mic for little money ($200 for three), an the
845 is good as well. I think I'd take either over a Beta 58.
The VX10 and the KMS105 are very nice (although very different, with their
own good qualities), but they require a lot of stage volume disipline.
hank alrich
> "Hugh Fox" wrote...
<snipitty doo dah>
> > i heard a beta 58 being used
<snipitty yay>
> also what kind of price on the OM-3 and on the B58 have you found??? I can
> probably help you out. and get you in to an OM-5 for the same money... a
> matter a fact I have 2 OM-5's here that have probably 12 hours on them...
OM3 is usable; OM5 is much better. If one could get the OM5 for the
price of an OM3, go for it. (Michael is a reputable guy, and his offer
is genuine.)
--
ha
Ty Ford
(in article <zjnrd.8701$Dm2....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>):
Has anyone in this thread tried an Audio Technica AE5400? It's a handheld
condenser with pad and rolloff. A pretty amazing mic for my ears. Not too
many people have heard about it. The local GC is clueless, but when I had it
here I was very impressed. Beat a KMS105 in close micing.
Regards,
Ty Ford
-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
michael gaster
news:2vGdnUEqeug...@comcast.com...
they have revised the VX-10 so its not so sensative, and for current VX-10
users you can send your mic back and they will change/upgrade it to the new
lower sens rating.
hank alrich
> i was looking at buying something around the beta 58
> price range and for the same money there is the audix om3, don't think
> i would get the chance to review either so i am looking for guidance,
Given that choice I would buy the OM3 in a heartbeat.
--
ha
Ty Ford
>> I also use the OM7. You can usually get them used on eBay or from
>> RatSound
>> (or maybe Mr. Gaster?) for $125 to $150. Being a comparatively neutral
>> mic,
>> I find that they work well on voices of all types.
>>
>> I had a couple of OM5s for a while. They have nasties just as the SM and
>> Beta do, they are just different nasties. I've never use an OM3, so I
>> cannot comment. Other have said that they are more colored but cleaner
>> than
>> the OM5.
>>
>> The Sennheiser E835 is a nice mic for little money ($200 for three), an
>> the
>> 845 is good as well. I think I'd take either over a Beta 58.
>>
>> The VX10 and the KMS105 are very nice (although very different, with their
>> own good qualities), but they require a lot of stage volume disipline.
>>
>
> they have revised the VX-10 so its not so sensative, and for current VX-10
> users you can send your mic back and they will change/upgrade it to the new
> lower sens rating.
Try the AE5400 with pad and high pass. Really.
Particle Salad
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now available: new Particle Salad CD "The Track Inside."
See http://www.particlesalad.com for more info.
Pooh Bear
Hugh Fox wrote:
I have heard Shures in general and understand why I don't like them.
Tried any European mics ? There is life outside the USA you know ! E.g.
AKG, Sennheiser, Beyer to name the obvious candidates for live use. I
did once use a Neumann live. It was stunning - but it's a bit overkill
using a U87 live !
Graham
Joe L
I used the B58, and have replaced it with the om5. The off axis rejection
was noticeably way better. Plus a way smoother mic to my ears and that works
better with the iem's. When I have guest vocalists I prefer my sm58 over the
beta58 for them, to my ears it just seems to sound smoother and fit more
voices. The beta58 just really doesn't do it for me.
Joe L
Phildo
"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41B55E7A...@hotmail.com...
> I
> did once use a Neumann live. It was stunning - but it's a bit overkill
> using a U87 live !
>
Phildo
Pete Pine
(from someone reading this ng regulary)
We have a band playing brasilian music, so there's a lot of percussion
sound bleeding to vocal mics, and now we are using sm58's to vocals.(5
total)
for most of male vocals 58's work ok (for the male lead perfect), but
somtimes for female leads low end seems to disappear into percussion
texture (noise...;-). I have to quite often "fader-help" her from Foh,
allthough I know sound is there...
Audix om7?.
excuse me if my english is not...
P