micing up options..

koneguitarist

@drew and others who thinks mic's is the way to go.

Going back to late 90's I was asked to do a PA demo for a church which also wanted to be able to use guitar amps etc . I took a PA up and set it up showing it whilst using a CD then putting a drum machine through it then I did a comparison between mic'ing up with a SM57 and a Peavey EDI box, there was quite a few experienced guitarists there, who could not tell the difference between the SM57 and EDI with flat EQ on both, certainly noticed when I knocked mic off axis on purpose though. 

It's not a case of that will do and consistency, or it's cheaper etc etc it's as good, without any drawbacks. 

Looked at the new HK red box, a lot more on them now and seem cheaper. Sounds a very good deal. Ain't tried the new ones but in a direct comparison years ago, the Peavey sounded more natural, and funnily enough was better with a Marshall than a Peavey amp?

:-/

p90fool

koneguitarist;348769" said:

...sounded more natural, and funnily enough was better with a Marshall than a Peavey amp? :-/

You'd pretty well won me over until that point.

Grunfeld

monquixote said:

I play on a lot of small stages where you can't have a big pedal board and have about a spare foot to stand in and I have tripped over an SM57 and buggered up my sound on multiple occasions.

About a year ago I got an "amp clamp" which is basically a small plate which you screw to the cab, and you slide a mic mount into it.  Drilling the holes for the plate took 5 mins, setting up on stage takes about 10 seconds, if that.  I'm using an SM57.

You always get the mic in the same position, and because there's no mic stand on the floor it's very tidy on stage.  It's one of those "best £30 I've ever spent" purchases!

http://www.ampclamps.com/wtpro.html

spacecadet

Just found this. Massive Radial geek so this is now very high on my "to buy" list.

strtdv

I've had good results with an e906. It has a little less fizz than an e609, and it's very easy to set up to sound good.

ROOG

IanSavage said:

This thread makes me smile, because every time I see it I think of mice and what options I have for them.

Think your self lucky @IanSavage, I thought it referred to 'mincing up', so help me!

Si_

The red Box doesn't sound a patch to the proper mic in most demos I can find:

John_P

If I'm using an amp with a half decent emulated output I'll use it - last friday I di'ed from the zenamp and it was great.   

Usually I use an amp clamp that clips on the side of the cab and a senn 609,  sounds great and nothing to knock over - much better than a mic stand imo.

welshboyo

Hi All,

thanks for the replies on this - as an update, I have actually managed to source a Peavey EDI that @ICBM and @koneguitarist mentioned for the princely sum of 4.99 from ebay, we'll see how we get on with it this weekend, however, in saying that, this little Egnater is so bloody loud that I might not need it for the majority of gigs we do, but the spread I'll get with a trickle through the PA might help..

koneguitarist

If you have the small filter on side of EDI called timbre plug init in and whilst listening with EQ flat on desk, get other member of band to turn it until you find the spot that tone suits you best.

After that use desk EQ to fine tune your sound for mix.

jpfamps

guitarfishbay said:

steamabacus said:

Isn't the move towards axe/kemper more to do with the cost of touring (more specifically, hauling huge amounts of gear around) in the modern economic climate?

I'm not entirely sure these decisions are being made because they necessarily sound better (or worse). They're obviously good enough to do the job. Maybe more importantly, they're light enough to make the gig affordable?

Yes this is a massive part of it, even Metallica have gone down this route now and they're one of the biggest bands in the world.

The thing is - the cost of travel and fuel is increasing, but the amount people expect to pay for a gig is the same.  Bands have to balance the books somehow.

Metallica have a huge number of guitar feeds going to the FOH desk. A friend of mine was helping engineering a session of theirs at the BBC and they ran out of channels (96!).

Getting a great )or even average) FOH sound at the types venues Metallica play is no mean feat, and all big shows like that will have multiple guitar feeds to the FOH desk.

koneguitarist

jpfamps said:

guitarfishbay said:

steamabacus said:

Isn't the move towards axe/kemper more to do with the cost of touring (more specifically, hauling huge amounts of gear around) in the modern economic climate?

I'm not entirely sure these decisions are being made because they necessarily sound better (or worse). They're obviously good enough to do the job. Maybe more importantly, they're light enough to make the gig affordable?

Yes this is a massive part of it, even Metallica have gone down this route now and they're one of the biggest bands in the world.

The thing is - the cost of travel and fuel is increasing, but the amount people expect to pay for a gig is the same.  Bands have to balance the books somehow.

Metallica have a huge number of guitar feeds going to the FOH desk. A friend of mine was helping engineering a session of theirs at the BBC and they ran out of channels (96!).

Getting a great )or even average) FOH sound at the types venues Metallica play is no mean feat, and all big shows like that will have multiple guitar feeds to the FOH desk.

I do wonder at some bands over complicating things just because they can. The sound at a lot of venues does not seem any better with technology, as they try to do too many things rather than just get a good core sound on drums and bass, then everything becomes easier.

Cirrus

A lot of it has to do with backups/ redundancy rather than sound quality. If you take your typical big touring act, they have at least two of everything so immediately their rig is twice as big/complicated as what you'd imagine they'd need based on the sounds they get. If you just want a clean amp and an overdriven amp, suddenly you've got four channels of guitar coming in (assuming only one mic per amp), a fifth DI signal perhaps in case there's a power issue on stage and they need to bosh you through an amp sim to keep the show going.

ICBM

Si_ said:

The red Box doesn't sound a patch to the proper mic in most demos I can find:

I agree that in those demos, the mic sounds much better. (I have to say I couldn't watch the second one more than briefly though…) Much more open and natural - the Red Box sounds congested and like all the top-end is missing.

But in the first one, you can see that the H&K has the switch set to 'vintage', which if I remember right is H&K's term for "mud".

From experience with the older model, it's true that if you run them through the desk with flat EQ, they can sound a bit like that… but that's what the desk EQ is for. A comparison with no EQ is only useful up to a point - what's more useful is to compare the sounds when they're both dialled in as good as they can be and to sound the same.

p90fool

Hmm, doesn't really sound all that "plug n play" anymore.

ICBM

p90fool said:

Hmm, doesn't really sound all that "plug n play" anymore.

Why not? You have to EQ a mic in a mix as well. It's exactly the same with the Red Box except that the EQ setting is going to be different.

That's the soundman's job anyway.

How easy do you want it to be?

steamabacus

p90fool said:

Hmm, doesn't really sound all that "plug n play" anymore.

Nothing is really 'plug and play', is it? Different rooms sound different. Empty rooms sound different to full rooms. Amps placed in different parts of the room sound different. It's why we have 'equalisation' on amps and desks.

p90fool

I AM the soundman!

ICBM

In that case you should find it slightly easier than a mic. One extra cable and no positioning to worry about.

vasselmeyer

p90fool;353764" said:

I AM the soundman!

Koo-koo ca-choo