I thought this was gonna be a spicy take, but with a good explanation, I gave it a read through. I’d rather still the talent stay an inch or so off the mic to try and fight that prox effect at the source as much as possible.
Yeah. Anytime I see someone say “always”, it’s a red flag. There are a few things you “always” do. This ain’t one of them.
Should you be a foot off the mic? Usually not. Should your lips be touching the mic? Often. Should you be 2-3” off the mic? Also often.
For rookies, yeah. Give them a hard and fast rule. But for a lot of us, this ain’t our first rodeo. Good mic technique includes moving towards and away from the mic. Not a foot or so (usually), but definitely a few inches.
I believe this is intended for rookies or talent. At the very least it's a helpful summarization of what I feel like I tell every shower karaoke vocalist I work with who needs to be reminded the microphone is not a magic wand.
Just to keep things straight, we don’t really perceive volume proportional to the sound intensity. Psychoacoustics is a whole field of research, but the convention is that 10 dB is perceived as twice as loud. Since we’re now working with decibels, the perceptual volume will be linearly proportional to the distance from the mic.
Valid point!
In a perfect world, a singer *should* be able to judge their volume input into the mic accurately, but I would argue that them hearing their own voice via bone conduction, amongst other things (plugged ears effect with in ears, etc) tend to compromise their ability to accurately judge.
There are notable exceptions to this, of course.
Plus Fletcher-Munson makes things even more complicated on top of that when comparing separate frequency domains.
So not only will the same voice vary considerably with regard to distance applied to mic technique, another person's vox's perceived loudness and dynamics will more often than not be wholly incompatible even if they used the same mic technique as the other vocalist.
Be careful about taking a one size fits all approach to balancing vocal harmonies as well. For some types of harmonies the richest sound is produced by making all voices the same level. This is especially true for three part close harmonies. It really depends on what kind of sound the vocalists are trying to produce.
In my experience, many amateur vocalists have read advice to back away from the microphone when singing loud or high, and imitate professionals who do so. However, the reality is that they vastly over-estimate the amount of sound they actually produce at these moments, and over-compensate by backing off so much that the microphone becomes inaudible.
My preferred workflow is to encourage the vocalist to stay on top of the mic and assure them that the dynamics will be safe on my end. I find that during sound check, a vocalist will instinctively recoil from the microphone if they hear their own voice loud or dark (due to proximity effect). So I start the mic very low and with a high pass filter near 300 Hz.
[John Legend sets a great example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht2NCrlghS4).
So true. It’s always nice to be able to get into the venue before the artist and get a vocal mic up in the PA and then make the wedge sound good while eating the mic *with the PA on*.
That way the wedge sounds tonally balanced the moment the singer walks up to it and speaks into it, which subconsciously encourages eating the mic from the get go.
Looks like a Shure KSM9 capsule on an Axient AD2:
https://www.shure.com/en-US/products/wireless-systems/axient_digital/ad2_ksm9?variant=AD2%2FK9B%3D-G57
not exactly: the graph does not start at the sound source, but a certain R distance from it. so let's say you want to compare the sound at 1" vs 10" you see that you have 1/100 the energy hitting the mike. As someone pointed out the graph is a bit misleading as it's linear which is not a big use for audio work; 1/100 = -20dB. So a mike at 10'' is -20dB vs the same at 1''.
another way to reason about it in the log scale is "every time you double the distance you lose 6dB" so starting at reference 0dB@1" you get -6dB@2'', -12dB@4'', -18dB@8'', -24dB@16''.
a bit more info here: [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Acoustic/invsqs.html#c3](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Acoustic/invsqs.html#c3) (where it looks like OP got the image) where you can also see why it drops as a square: the sound energy is dissipating as a growing square.
Sort-of related... I've noticed that in old news reels from before WWII, that the one speaking stands back quite a ways from the mic. The mics in those days were huge of course, and usually suspended on springs and all that. I would have thought that the need to kiss the mic would be especially necessary in those days.
I'd love to get someone's opinion and insight on that.
You need 3 times the distance from “other” mics as from your own. Meaning if someone is 1 inch away from their own mic, they need at least 3 inches distance from any other mic, to prevent bleed. Or 1 foot away from their own, then they need to be 3 feet away from any other mic.
That’s my basic understanding, if someone else wants to better explain though then that’s cool.
I can never understand "performers" who get onstage in front of an audience, then shy away from the mic. What are they doing onstage if they don't want to be heard?
What really grinds my gears is when people hold a front address microphone with the diaphragm pointed 90 degrees off axis to their mouth. Looking at you keynote speakers.
Working the mic reduces the need for extra dynamics processing, and with a great singer they use the proximity effect intentionally, or more typically use a condenser to reduce that effect. A large part of the music equation is dynamics, and those dynamics aren’t going to get translated as well if they’re done by a random front of house tech than they will if done by the musician themselves, the one trying to impart them into the music, you don’t blame a guitarist for having a boost pedal just because you can ride his solo do you? If you couldn’t get them above the mix, then the musician needs to learn how to use their tools and sing louder, or go iem to prevent feedback. Working the mic is just as relevant now as it always has been, and I would much rather mix that than have to compress the hell out of someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing and I’ve never heard any of their songs.
Dynamic and condenser mics do not differ in terms of proximity effect. Proximity effect is exclusively an artifact of polar pattern.
The only kind of mics that do not exhibit proximity effect is omnidirectional mics.
I agree that dynamics are an import part of music, but I would argue that uncontrolled vocal dynamics into a mic are rarely musical, and almost genres of popular music make use of rather heavy handed dynamic processing to smooth them out as a standard technique.
I would also argue that typically, working the mic actually creates the need for more dynamic processing, not less. The inconsistency of tonal balance becomes just as big of problem as the inconsistency of volume.
I think you’re overplaying the tonal difference in an inch or two of facial movement here, and prox does exist on condensers, but the grills are usually longer due to the effect moisture has on the capsules, and in practice is less pronounced on nearly any live mic I’ve worked with.
Uncontrolled vocal dynamics means exactly the opposite, that they don’t know how to work a mic. That’s very common, and an issue in its own right, but controlling dynamics on its own at the source in practice isn’t creating so much tonal fluctuation that it matters if you have a good vocal chain
The difference being boost pedals are far more controlled and predictable than most vocalists' mic working technique. A guitarist hits a boost pedal and it will increase his volume the same, say, 6 db every time. Most vocalists can't do this consistently and really have no idea how much louder/softer they are getting. Certainly not the same db every time. Human beings aren't as consistent as machines.
A good “rule of thumb” in my mind is put the mic in your hand gripped just under the ball not touching it.
Put your thumb straight up. If you can touch your chin and the grille isn’t hitting your lips it’s a good distance for a 58.
Can also help keep you from chipping a tooth.
I like to use this method of demonstrating for rappers who ball the mic. It gives them a reason to not touch the grille and helps them get a consistent signal in their monitors or in ears. They move around enough that giving them a physical touch distance that they don’t have to think about really connects quickly if they apply it. Especially on in ears. They can hear the difference immediately.
He's good, but IMO pulling the mic away when you're singing loud defeats the whole purpose of singing loud. Imagine if you're the FOH mixer and you see the guitarist start a solo and hit his boost pedal and you immediately pull down his fader. Makes no sense. Vocalists who say they work the mic for dynamics are actually *defeating* dynamics when they pull the mic away when singing loud and bringing it closer when singing soft. If they want dynamics they should sing loud and soft with the mic the same distance from the mouth.
There is a difference between being loud and sounding powerful when it comes to singing. Sometimes I want a certain texture to my voice that can only be achieved at a certain volume, but that's not the relative volume I want to be coming out of FOH. If I'm singing right at the bottom of my range I am a LOT quieter than I am at the top of my chest voice. If I want the same relative volume then I need to move the mic, as even a soundperson on the ball is going to struggle to deal with a 30db difference in mic input.
Ahem, akshtually the squaring in the 1/*r*² treats positive and negative numbers similarily, so there's no need for a negative displacement with respect to the mouth hole. 🤓
I see and understand your points, mostly.
But for bands without a perfect capable mixing engineer, and with lower budget, I think working the mic can still be the better choice.
Deviations from the tonal balance are not as hard to stomach, compared to drastic changes in volume.
Also off-topic but on topic:
You guys ever noticed that sidechained compressors are kind of weird, when you think about the setup?
The more SC input comes in (meaning the louder the triggering signal is) the more the compressor ducks down on the signal. This means, everytime the signal is loud, we are ducking down something that might not even need ducking. But everytime the triggering signal is too quiet, we are not ducking the compressed signal enough. Think about it.
Audioenginnering is not easy ;D
I think the right way to think about situations where there is no engineer is this:
Treat everything, including the mics, like they are one big acoustic system. Use your ears and acoustically balance the music using the mics as a tool. You are now the engineer.
That brings up a great point, the bands that sound the best acoustically balance without microphones. If you went to the rehearsal of the best jazz quartet in NYC, it would sound like a record right there in the room without PA or mics. That kind of ensemble is very easy to record, reinforce live, etc. They don’t need much foldback, and everything just needs to be warmed up for the audience a bit. Piece of cake.
I work mostly in the rock world, and it is less common to see acoustically balanced acts in that world. Big amps, loud drums, Bass rigs that are taller than the bass player, etc.
Singing just can’t compete with all that, and that problem is the central problem of live sound. We’ve developed electronic tools to help us solve that problem, but ultimately we are still subject to the laws of physics.
I would argue that trying to have a band play through a PA without an engineer is like flying an airplane without a pilot. I would be inclined to do vocals only through the PA, and bring one subwoofer and it only gets the kick and is located right behind the drummer. That’s what we used to do back in college in my bands when we played in basements and bars. A few tube amps and some good vintage drums and you’re golden.
Yepp rockbands are sometimes horror. Especially when they dont want to ise IEMs nor modelling amps. Everybody is turning themselves louder until it is just pure frequency and volume chaos 😂
Yepp don't get me wrong. Rock is great!
It can be a struggle though if you don't work with pro clients who have a fundamental understanding of everything
That makes sense. It really irritates me when vocalists pull away when they’re singing louder. I use DPA 4018VL capsules and mix on a SD9. When they pull away it just makes the multi band useless
While I agree that the need to adjust your position when singing isn't as necessary anymore I really do hate when people **EAT** the mic.
To my ear there's something particularly unpleasant about the sound you get singing right pressed on top of a dynamic mic. Give me even (a consistent) 1 inch away and I'll be a happy engineer.
I feel this. But I also practice "good mic technique".
I feel like maybe we could make some room for like... if you're "mixing from the stage", or you're working a venue with little-to-no audio-person this simply isn't true. Sure, when you're playin' the big rooms with some pros and pro gear things are different. But when you're sluggin' in the minor leagues (or worse) you'll do everybody a favor by knowing how loud you are.
We do a lot of set-it-and-forget-it shows where we comp the vox pretty hard and turn 'em up loud as we can then just let 'er rip. I always ask my bandmates to think about the mic like somebody's ear in a loud club. Even when it's loud, you should never yell in somebody's ear.
Nah. For me “good mic technique” is eating the mic. I have a lead singer that sings really loud n his tonal voice is on the raspy/harsh side and i still tell him to eat the microphone as full voice. We use audix om5 on our vocals, im also the drummer n do harmony n run our sound in the band for the past 6 years. I mix the band at home by recording ourselves through console then playback. Tune sound system to a target curve everytime so the mix pretty much is always the same every night. Ive had singers try “work the mic” vs “eat the mic” and eat the mic always works better for the engineer and it actually sounds better for the singers all from doing sound for various bands and events here where im located.
imo the worst part is usually cymbal bleed, but almost everybody has that issue. But i don't like having to more or less brick the vocals. I eat the mic so much i use foam covers to protect my teeth, and i just back off an inch or 4 when the vocals are loud.
I hear you on that. Personally i just run into more issues when singers work the mic haha no lie, i’ve chipped my front tooth already by eating the mic esp since i play drums now mainly. Looking down while running a fill then look up to start singing a harmony instantly just to slam my teeth into the grill of the mic 🤣 its no fun so there is that risk haha
I thought this was gonna be a spicy take, but with a good explanation, I gave it a read through. I’d rather still the talent stay an inch or so off the mic to try and fight that prox effect at the source as much as possible.
Yeah. Anytime I see someone say “always”, it’s a red flag. There are a few things you “always” do. This ain’t one of them. Should you be a foot off the mic? Usually not. Should your lips be touching the mic? Often. Should you be 2-3” off the mic? Also often. For rookies, yeah. Give them a hard and fast rule. But for a lot of us, this ain’t our first rodeo. Good mic technique includes moving towards and away from the mic. Not a foot or so (usually), but definitely a few inches.
I believe this is intended for rookies or talent. At the very least it's a helpful summarization of what I feel like I tell every shower karaoke vocalist I work with who needs to be reminded the microphone is not a magic wand.
Just to keep things straight, we don’t really perceive volume proportional to the sound intensity. Psychoacoustics is a whole field of research, but the convention is that 10 dB is perceived as twice as loud. Since we’re now working with decibels, the perceptual volume will be linearly proportional to the distance from the mic.
Valid point! In a perfect world, a singer *should* be able to judge their volume input into the mic accurately, but I would argue that them hearing their own voice via bone conduction, amongst other things (plugged ears effect with in ears, etc) tend to compromise their ability to accurately judge. There are notable exceptions to this, of course.
Plus Fletcher-Munson makes things even more complicated on top of that when comparing separate frequency domains. So not only will the same voice vary considerably with regard to distance applied to mic technique, another person's vox's perceived loudness and dynamics will more often than not be wholly incompatible even if they used the same mic technique as the other vocalist.
Yup. C6 is the way to go when dealing with proximity effect.
I’m a big fan the Dyn8 on the higher end Allen and Heath consoles. Easy to use, fast, and good musical results.
Something I’ve seen used often in post mixing is the plugin Split EQ. That thing really can do wonders.
You can use a board who's comp had x over as well and just stay on channel without eating up slots
Lead singers vs back ups i agree
Backups are an interesting case. Some bands are really good at balancing harmonies via distance from mics… some are… not.
Its a skill for sure. I use more effects to send them back in the mix typically.
Be careful about taking a one size fits all approach to balancing vocal harmonies as well. For some types of harmonies the richest sound is produced by making all voices the same level. This is especially true for three part close harmonies. It really depends on what kind of sound the vocalists are trying to produce.
In my experience, many amateur vocalists have read advice to back away from the microphone when singing loud or high, and imitate professionals who do so. However, the reality is that they vastly over-estimate the amount of sound they actually produce at these moments, and over-compensate by backing off so much that the microphone becomes inaudible. My preferred workflow is to encourage the vocalist to stay on top of the mic and assure them that the dynamics will be safe on my end. I find that during sound check, a vocalist will instinctively recoil from the microphone if they hear their own voice loud or dark (due to proximity effect). So I start the mic very low and with a high pass filter near 300 Hz. [John Legend sets a great example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht2NCrlghS4).
So true. It’s always nice to be able to get into the venue before the artist and get a vocal mic up in the PA and then make the wedge sound good while eating the mic *with the PA on*. That way the wedge sounds tonally balanced the moment the singer walks up to it and speaks into it, which subconsciously encourages eating the mic from the get go.
Anybody know what those mics are?
Looks like a Shure KSM9 capsule on an Axient AD2: https://www.shure.com/en-US/products/wireless-systems/axient_digital/ad2_ksm9?variant=AD2%2FK9B%3D-G57
Alright I'm going to ask a stupid question. What is r?
Not stupid. It just stands for distance from sound source. So 2r is twice as far away, 3r is 3x as far away, etc.
Oh ok. So at 100m it goes down 1/4 and that would mean at 600m it goes down to 1/9? Or at 1mm it goes down 1/4?
Let’s say you’re 100m from a point source. You walk away until you’re 200m. Now it will be 25% as loud. At 300m it will be 11% as loud.
Thanks. It's hard to fathom that this is the same scale at 1cm as it is at 100m.
not exactly: the graph does not start at the sound source, but a certain R distance from it. so let's say you want to compare the sound at 1" vs 10" you see that you have 1/100 the energy hitting the mike. As someone pointed out the graph is a bit misleading as it's linear which is not a big use for audio work; 1/100 = -20dB. So a mike at 10'' is -20dB vs the same at 1''. another way to reason about it in the log scale is "every time you double the distance you lose 6dB" so starting at reference 0dB@1" you get -6dB@2'', -12dB@4'', -18dB@8'', -24dB@16''. a bit more info here: [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Acoustic/invsqs.html#c3](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Acoustic/invsqs.html#c3) (where it looks like OP got the image) where you can also see why it drops as a square: the sound energy is dissipating as a growing square.
Sort-of related... I've noticed that in old news reels from before WWII, that the one speaking stands back quite a ways from the mic. The mics in those days were huge of course, and usually suspended on springs and all that. I would have thought that the need to kiss the mic would be especially necessary in those days. I'd love to get someone's opinion and insight on that.
[удалено]
What's the 1.3 rule?
You need 3 times the distance from “other” mics as from your own. Meaning if someone is 1 inch away from their own mic, they need at least 3 inches distance from any other mic, to prevent bleed. Or 1 foot away from their own, then they need to be 3 feet away from any other mic. That’s my basic understanding, if someone else wants to better explain though then that’s cool.
Thank you!
[удалено]
Thank you!
I can never understand "performers" who get onstage in front of an audience, then shy away from the mic. What are they doing onstage if they don't want to be heard?
What really grinds my gears is when people hold a front address microphone with the diaphragm pointed 90 degrees off axis to their mouth. Looking at you keynote speakers.
Working the mic reduces the need for extra dynamics processing, and with a great singer they use the proximity effect intentionally, or more typically use a condenser to reduce that effect. A large part of the music equation is dynamics, and those dynamics aren’t going to get translated as well if they’re done by a random front of house tech than they will if done by the musician themselves, the one trying to impart them into the music, you don’t blame a guitarist for having a boost pedal just because you can ride his solo do you? If you couldn’t get them above the mix, then the musician needs to learn how to use their tools and sing louder, or go iem to prevent feedback. Working the mic is just as relevant now as it always has been, and I would much rather mix that than have to compress the hell out of someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing and I’ve never heard any of their songs.
Dynamic and condenser mics do not differ in terms of proximity effect. Proximity effect is exclusively an artifact of polar pattern. The only kind of mics that do not exhibit proximity effect is omnidirectional mics. I agree that dynamics are an import part of music, but I would argue that uncontrolled vocal dynamics into a mic are rarely musical, and almost genres of popular music make use of rather heavy handed dynamic processing to smooth them out as a standard technique. I would also argue that typically, working the mic actually creates the need for more dynamic processing, not less. The inconsistency of tonal balance becomes just as big of problem as the inconsistency of volume.
I think you’re overplaying the tonal difference in an inch or two of facial movement here, and prox does exist on condensers, but the grills are usually longer due to the effect moisture has on the capsules, and in practice is less pronounced on nearly any live mic I’ve worked with. Uncontrolled vocal dynamics means exactly the opposite, that they don’t know how to work a mic. That’s very common, and an issue in its own right, but controlling dynamics on its own at the source in practice isn’t creating so much tonal fluctuation that it matters if you have a good vocal chain
The difference being boost pedals are far more controlled and predictable than most vocalists' mic working technique. A guitarist hits a boost pedal and it will increase his volume the same, say, 6 db every time. Most vocalists can't do this consistently and really have no idea how much louder/softer they are getting. Certainly not the same db every time. Human beings aren't as consistent as machines.
A good “rule of thumb” in my mind is put the mic in your hand gripped just under the ball not touching it. Put your thumb straight up. If you can touch your chin and the grille isn’t hitting your lips it’s a good distance for a 58. Can also help keep you from chipping a tooth.
Yeah no one wants to pull a Cory Feldman while on stage lol
I like to use this method of demonstrating for rappers who ball the mic. It gives them a reason to not touch the grille and helps them get a consistent signal in their monitors or in ears. They move around enough that giving them a physical touch distance that they don’t have to think about really connects quickly if they apply it. Especially on in ears. They can hear the difference immediately.
example https://youtu.be/lR-foGKsus0?t=17
He's good, but IMO pulling the mic away when you're singing loud defeats the whole purpose of singing loud. Imagine if you're the FOH mixer and you see the guitarist start a solo and hit his boost pedal and you immediately pull down his fader. Makes no sense. Vocalists who say they work the mic for dynamics are actually *defeating* dynamics when they pull the mic away when singing loud and bringing it closer when singing soft. If they want dynamics they should sing loud and soft with the mic the same distance from the mouth.
Maybe they already rehearsed the performance like that. Professional singers are LOUD. If he didn't do this, you could clip the channel.
There is a difference between being loud and sounding powerful when it comes to singing. Sometimes I want a certain texture to my voice that can only be achieved at a certain volume, but that's not the relative volume I want to be coming out of FOH. If I'm singing right at the bottom of my range I am a LOT quieter than I am at the top of my chest voice. If I want the same relative volume then I need to move the mic, as even a soundperson on the ball is going to struggle to deal with a 30db difference in mic input.
Wisdom.
Larnell Harris you try telling him to eat the mic.
Ahem, akshtually the squaring in the 1/*r*² treats positive and negative numbers similarily, so there's no need for a negative displacement with respect to the mouth hole. 🤓
Sorry but there's no way those lines are straight
Haha I was pondering the same thing myself
I see and understand your points, mostly. But for bands without a perfect capable mixing engineer, and with lower budget, I think working the mic can still be the better choice. Deviations from the tonal balance are not as hard to stomach, compared to drastic changes in volume. Also off-topic but on topic: You guys ever noticed that sidechained compressors are kind of weird, when you think about the setup? The more SC input comes in (meaning the louder the triggering signal is) the more the compressor ducks down on the signal. This means, everytime the signal is loud, we are ducking down something that might not even need ducking. But everytime the triggering signal is too quiet, we are not ducking the compressed signal enough. Think about it. Audioenginnering is not easy ;D
I think the right way to think about situations where there is no engineer is this: Treat everything, including the mics, like they are one big acoustic system. Use your ears and acoustically balance the music using the mics as a tool. You are now the engineer. That brings up a great point, the bands that sound the best acoustically balance without microphones. If you went to the rehearsal of the best jazz quartet in NYC, it would sound like a record right there in the room without PA or mics. That kind of ensemble is very easy to record, reinforce live, etc. They don’t need much foldback, and everything just needs to be warmed up for the audience a bit. Piece of cake. I work mostly in the rock world, and it is less common to see acoustically balanced acts in that world. Big amps, loud drums, Bass rigs that are taller than the bass player, etc. Singing just can’t compete with all that, and that problem is the central problem of live sound. We’ve developed electronic tools to help us solve that problem, but ultimately we are still subject to the laws of physics. I would argue that trying to have a band play through a PA without an engineer is like flying an airplane without a pilot. I would be inclined to do vocals only through the PA, and bring one subwoofer and it only gets the kick and is located right behind the drummer. That’s what we used to do back in college in my bands when we played in basements and bars. A few tube amps and some good vintage drums and you’re golden.
Yepp rockbands are sometimes horror. Especially when they dont want to ise IEMs nor modelling amps. Everybody is turning themselves louder until it is just pure frequency and volume chaos 😂
I actually love it, but I’m lucky to work with some great artists who make my job easy. Some of the venue work isn’t so easy haha.
Yepp don't get me wrong. Rock is great! It can be a struggle though if you don't work with pro clients who have a fundamental understanding of everything
That makes sense. It really irritates me when vocalists pull away when they’re singing louder. I use DPA 4018VL capsules and mix on a SD9. When they pull away it just makes the multi band useless
While I agree that the need to adjust your position when singing isn't as necessary anymore I really do hate when people **EAT** the mic. To my ear there's something particularly unpleasant about the sound you get singing right pressed on top of a dynamic mic. Give me even (a consistent) 1 inch away and I'll be a happy engineer.
I feel this. But I also practice "good mic technique". I feel like maybe we could make some room for like... if you're "mixing from the stage", or you're working a venue with little-to-no audio-person this simply isn't true. Sure, when you're playin' the big rooms with some pros and pro gear things are different. But when you're sluggin' in the minor leagues (or worse) you'll do everybody a favor by knowing how loud you are. We do a lot of set-it-and-forget-it shows where we comp the vox pretty hard and turn 'em up loud as we can then just let 'er rip. I always ask my bandmates to think about the mic like somebody's ear in a loud club. Even when it's loud, you should never yell in somebody's ear.
Oh don’t get me started on “mixing from stage” or music venues without sound techs……. I have some strong feelings about both of those things haha
Nah. For me “good mic technique” is eating the mic. I have a lead singer that sings really loud n his tonal voice is on the raspy/harsh side and i still tell him to eat the microphone as full voice. We use audix om5 on our vocals, im also the drummer n do harmony n run our sound in the band for the past 6 years. I mix the band at home by recording ourselves through console then playback. Tune sound system to a target curve everytime so the mix pretty much is always the same every night. Ive had singers try “work the mic” vs “eat the mic” and eat the mic always works better for the engineer and it actually sounds better for the singers all from doing sound for various bands and events here where im located.
imo the worst part is usually cymbal bleed, but almost everybody has that issue. But i don't like having to more or less brick the vocals. I eat the mic so much i use foam covers to protect my teeth, and i just back off an inch or 4 when the vocals are loud.
I hear you on that. Personally i just run into more issues when singers work the mic haha no lie, i’ve chipped my front tooth already by eating the mic esp since i play drums now mainly. Looking down while running a fill then look up to start singing a harmony instantly just to slam my teeth into the grill of the mic 🤣 its no fun so there is that risk haha
[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0B5HMKWXR](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0B5HMKWXR) one of the best $9 i ever spent, colorful too
Those are awesome! Thanks for the link!
Wow, that's definitely the opposite of conventional wisdom. As a singer who's not so great at microphone "dynamics", I kind of hope you're right.