[Harp-L] audix fireball

[Brian Irving]

Hi guys,

What are the advantages of an Audix Fireball mic over a Shure SM58 for harp?

B

[George Miklas]

Given the features of the Audix Fireball V, the REAL advantages are found
in Greg Heuman's Ultimate 58. IMHO

--

- *HARMONICA GALLERY SALES* and *REPAIR SERVICE*
- New!* HOHNER* Harmonicas <http://www.HarmonicaGallery.com/hohner>
- *HARMONICA REPAIR* Done Right by George
<http://harmonicagallery.com/repair>
- Used / Refurbished <http://www.HarmonicaGallery.com/contact>
- *GEORGE MIKLAS* Harmonica Performing Artist and Entertainer
<http://www.harmonicagallery.com/home1>
- *SPAH *- *The Society for the Preservation and Advancement of the
Harmonica <http://spah.org/>*
- *HOHNER HARMONICAS *- playhohner.com

[Dennis M. Cooper]

I use the Audix for about 90% of my performances. Since I usually do a
one man show and mix my own sound, I find the volume control a real
asset. When playing in larger venues with good sound engineers, I use a
Shure wireless microphone and let the sound guys balance the mix. For
dirty blues (rarely) I use an Astatic JT-30. In most performances with
bands and in the studio The Audix is my microphone of choice, unless
doing pure acoustic track, the the studio uses a vocal condenser mic. of
their choosing...

Best Regards,
Dennis M. Cooper
Harmonica Entertainer & Composer
2235 Paddock Avenue
Weiser, ID 83672
(208) 550-1599
http://dennis-cooper.com <http://dennis-cooper.com/>

[Greg Heumann]

Hi, Brian

The Fireball is a good mic IF all you want is warm clean acoustic tone. It is small and light and well made. However I call it “the one trick pony” because unlike most harp mics, it is very insensitive to hand effects. The Fireball is remarkable in that it withstands very high sound pressure levels without distorting. That would make it, for example, a good kick drum mic. But to me, playing amplified is a different instrument. I like to be able to control the tone and expression by cupping and uncupping the mic. If you want to do that the Fireball is actually not a good choice - it just doesn’t respond well. As George said, the Ultimate 58 is very similar in size, wright and cost but DOES respond to hand effects. The Ultimate 57 even more so. See Ultimate Series Mics <http://www.blowsmeaway.com/ultimate.html> for more info.

/Greg

http://blowsmeaway.com
http://facebook.com/blowsmeawayproductions

"You’re going to like the way you sound. I guarantee it."

When responding to this email, please include the copy of our previous conversations.

[Richard Hunter]

"Brian Irving" wrote:
<What are the advantages of an Audix Fireball mic over a Shure SM58 for harp?

The SM58 has a pronounced proximity effect, which means that you're going to get a lot of bass in the tone when you cup it. The SM58 also has a frequency emphasis at about 10 kHz, which is great for vocals but not tops for harmonica in my opinion.

The Fireball has practically zero proximity effect, which is great when you want a clear, singing tone. The Fireball is by far the most feedback-resistant mic I have ever used. It's not as gritty as an SM58 or a Bullet, but you can often pump up the amp to get more grit, which you can't do with most other mics because feedback increases with volume and gain.

I own an SM58, a Shure 545SD, a bottle o' blues, a Shaker dynamic, and a Shaker madcat. I've used them all in various contexts. For gigs where I only bring one mic, I generally bring the Fireball, because I can count on getting it loud enough to be heard with minimum feedback, and it's the most versatile mic in my collection. For a straight up blues gig I would probably bring the 545SD. I probably wouldn't use a bottle o'blues as my only mic, because (like bullet mics) it smears chords very badly, and I use a lot of chords in my playing.

You can hear samples of me playing similar licks on the 545SD, the Fireball, and the BoB at my site:
http://www.hunterharp.com/what-a-difference-a-mic-makes-part-1/
http://www.hunterharp.com/what-a-difference-a-mic-makes-part-ii/

The first URL shows you what these mics sound like on blues; the second shows you what they sound like with various FX applied.

In general, mics are pretty inexpensive as gear goes, with an SM58 selling for about $100 and a Fireball for about $125. it's not out of the question for many players to own both, and given that the mic really does change the sound, it's worth considering both if you play a lot of different styles.

Regards, Ricard Hunter

[Daniel]

Hi Richard, did you ever tried a Behringer xm8500 ?

Reviews all over the net are great , lots of people say it is similar to a sm58, but a lot cheaper.
I would not know as a lot of this technical stuff flies over my head but I do have one and I like it. My other mic is the audix fireball which I also like very much.

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/dynamic-microphones/behringer-xm8500-microphone

[Richard Hunter]

As it happens, I was at a jam session last night at the Spice of Life in London. When I got up to play, there was no time to set up my preferred rig--an Audix Fireball into a Digitech RP360XP into the PA--so I ended up playing through a handheld Shure SM58 directly into the PA.

I was grateful that the leader called a tune in C to start off, because high-pitched harps have a lot more punch into a PA than low-pitched harps do. I wasn't terrifically happy with the sound--I would certainly have liked more grind in the tone--but I could hear myself clearly, and that's more than half the battle.

After I played, one of the other harp players in attendance, who had played through the same mic just before me, asked me what rig I was using. When I told him it was the same rig as his, he was surprised. Big tone sounds big regardless of the rig involved. I could see from the hunched shoulders that guy exhibited when he stood before the mic that his tone was going to be an pinched as his posture. (In fairness to him, his main instrument was lap steel, and he played some truly beautiful stuff on that instrument.)

At a different gig with Lowlands on Sunday night, the band before me (The Tupelo Uncles, whose thing is revamping the music of Uncle Tupelo, an Americana band from the 1980s) had a harp player who ran a bullet mic direct to the PA. That, in my opinion, is about the worst sound you can get with a harp playing acoustic music, because you lose all the high-end frequencies, not just the ones you want to lose. The harp player made the best of it, but I kept wishing he'd pick up an SM58 or practically anything besides a bullet.

Like I said before on this thread, different mics sound very different, and it's unlikely that any player will ever find that one mic is tops for every situation, unless you always play the same kind of music with the same band. Because mics are relatively cheap, it's easy enough to build a collection over time.

regarding the question raised on this thread about the Behringer mic--it might sound fine, and it might be less expensive than an SM58. I'd rather have an SM58 than an SM58 clone, especially given the relatively slight difference in cost, because Shure customer service is absolutely the best on the planet, and if that mic ever needs service you're going to be glad you bought it from Shure.

Regards, Rihcard Hunter

[Robert Hale]

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Brian Irving <brian....@zen.co.uk> wrote:

> What are the advantages of an Audix Fireball mic over a Shure SM58 for
> harp?

I have played both. I like the fireball with volume.

Easy to hold. Not prone to feedback.
Clean mic for clean patches (wah, organ, octave down), and dirty sounds
thru FX processor (Richard Hunter patches on RP355)
Bonus: It's a short body mic, so adding my wireless transmitter makes it
about the same length as holding a vocal mic.


Robert Hale
Serious Honkage in Arizona
youtube.com/DUKEofWAIL
DUKEofWAIL.com

[Mund...@aol.com]

They are both excellent mics, and before I got a Fireball V I used an SM
58, and before that its predecessor the Shure Unisphere. They are ALL good
mics, but I now use my Fireball whenever I travel to the tropics, rather than
my JT-30 "Crystal Balls" with crystal element which tends to fail in
extremes of temperature and humidity. The Fireball is DESIGNED for harmonica,
and has a volume control, It is VERY reliable, and is quite honestly the best
"general purpose" harp mic I have ever used.
John "Whiteboy" Walden
Still in Coastal Kenya!


In a message dated 3/8/2016 4:07:26 P.M. E. Africa Standard Time,
brian....@zen.co.uk writes:

Hi guys,

What are the advantages of an Audix Fireball mic over a Shure SM58 for
harp?

B

[Larry Sandy]

Bob, do you mind stating what wireless mic transmitter set up you use?  I haven't found EXACTLY what I need, but own a couple decent choices.  I have a belt pack that requires a short cord from the mic then wirelessly transmits to it's receiver then through wires to an amp or PA.  I modified the pack to accept any mic cable type.  It also permits headphones with volume control.  I also picked up a wireless mic & receivers that I haven't used in public yet.  I'm not sure just how good it will sound.  I haven't connected these through my RP350 yet.
Lockjaw LarryNever ending experimenting specialist

[pdxha...@comcast.net]

I have a Audix fireball mic and a Blowsmeaway Ultimate 57 with the bulletizer attachment. I also have/use Richard Hunter's patch set for the RP360, and/or run my mic through my pedalboard out to my amp which is usually mic'd out to the PA. Both Fireball and Ult 57 mics sound great through the RP with the Hunter patches and out to the PA. (assumes a sound person who understands harmonica sound). Both mics also sound great through my pedal board and out to my 32/20 Mission amp. I prefer to use the Ultimate 57 for shows because I think it cups better in my hands and allows me to dig in for more grit. I use the audix fireball as a backup in case my Ult. 57 shoots crap during a show, or when playing off the mic acoustically - either through a small PA or out from my amp.

I don't like to go direct from any mic to PA without any tone controls precisely because harmonicas in the higher keys can be more "present" (my bandmates call it annoyingly shrill) - in the PA as Richard states. So having at least your own EQ pedal handy can give you the ability to lower the high freq. on higher keyed harps and also boost the high frequencies on the low-keyed harps. I find that helps me hear the harp in the mix a lot better when using Low keyed harps. It's a habit now to eq my sound based on the key of the harp. I also use the BBE Sonic Maximizer pedal and have it set to on always. Jason Ricci calls it a high definition pedal for harp - and I wholeheartedly agree.

Most of my pedal gear is designed with two things in mind - 1) to help me hear what I'm playing better/clearer, and 2) allow me to add grit or texture as needed. Most important of these two is being able to hear what I'm playing in the mix over the other instruments. If you can't hear what you're playing it is not going to be good or enjoyable. Sound check is always good to baseline, and in our band we all agree to not touch the amp volume knob after sound check, but my pedals allow me to tweak on the fly as needed.

It is all about playing well for the audience and being able to enjoy it on stage.

Ross Macdonald
sassparilla.info
----- Original Message -----

[Tin Lizzie]

Shortly after I started using the Audix Fireball was when I said to myself, “Okay, it’s time to really start trying to do more with hand effects.” Well, as you all know by now, the Fireball is great, even if you don’t have a perfectly tight cup, but does next to NOTHING regarding hand effects. Rats.

My playing context is typically one set at an open blues jam at a bar. Maybe a second one later on in the evening if I’m lucky and not too many other harp players show up that night. Speed of set up and take-down is key, and I get to blow one or two notes by way of a sound check and then please be quiet. Much as I enjoyed using the Digitech and Richard Hunter’s patches, it wasn’t the right rig for me in that situation, because the overhead of setting it up and taking it down was more than the people around me had patience for. I’m liked well enough, but let’s face it, I’m not in the category of “Harmonica Players Worth Waiting For."

I went through a singing phase and used a Blows-Me-Away SM58, with volume control, plugged straight into the PA. For singing, I’d use a separate vocal mic provided by the house if there was one. If not, I’d play and sing through the same mic. Was it perfect? No. Was it good? Yes!

Nowadays I skip the singing, and fewer people seem to choose my set to go out to the sidewalk to chat. I play through a Blows-Me-Away bulletized SM545, through the PA, and I like it just fine.

I still can’t do hand effects intuitively. But I have a good time, and the "regular folk" at the bar compliment my playing, sometimes. It’s good.

Tin Lizzie

[Joseph Leone]

On Mar 9, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Tin Lizzie wrote:
> . It’s good.
>
> Tin Lizzie


>

> 'It's all good' by Zeroleen
smo-joe (smacks lips)

[Richard Hunter]

I said earlier in this thread:

>regarding the question raised on this thread about the Behringer mic--it might sound fine, and it might be less expensive than an SM58. I'd rather have an SM58 than an SM58 clone, especially given the relatively slight difference in cost, because Shure customer service is absolutely the best on the planet, and if that mic ever needs service you're going to be glad you bought it from Shure.
>

I took a look at the Behringer XM8500 on musiciansfriend.com, and the price is $25. That's a pretty substantial difference compared to the SM58 at about $100, i.e. you can get 4 of the Behringers for the price of one SM58. If the sound is very similar, not a bad deal. At that rate, total cost of ownership for the Behringer might be less than the Shure over time even if you have to replace the Behringer twice.

Which you might have to do. I've owned a few Behringer mixers, and I've had problems with things like channels cutting out on a couple of them. it hasn't been a big issue for me because the behringer mixers are cheap enough that I can buy a few more channels than I really need for a very slight increase in price, which means that I still have plenty even if one cuts out. That's not a viable strategy with a mic. So if I was going with the behringer, I'd buy two. FYI, Lee Oskar told me once to buy two of EVERY piece of equipment that's part of my essential kit, which is why I own two Fireballs.

Thanks, RH

[Mike Rogers]

I'm with Richard on this. I also have 2 Fireballs and four 58's for our group. Been using 58's for about 30 years and only had one give out from old age. Shure replaced it for a very reasonable sum.
I've never been happy with low cost mics.

********************************

www.harmonicaworkshops.com
www.woodeneyemusic.com