Phantom power only goes through an XLR input, and all XLR inputs have a pre-amp in them. If you go into a 1/4 inch input, the phantom power does not go through there. The mixer should have a phono input, and that is the correct impedance for your mp3 player, and is where it should be wired. If you do not have that, then a 1/4 will do, even if it is on the same channel because phantom power only goes through an XLR input.Leave it to Fader to save the day. Whatever I'm looking for, he's always got one at home for me to go and try out. Ha. Thank you. I hadn't thought to ask your advice on this subject, to be honest.
By the way, Fader, you say that you have the Shure Beta 98, but I see LOTS of different versions of 98 on the Shure website. Are you talking about the 98H/C?
Styles, thank you for the very, very good information. So, then, the AT 35 has the option of using the battery. Question answered. Thank you.
Yes, guys, thank you for reminding me of the differences between a clip-on and a regular stand mic. Tough call, there.
Styles, thanks again. By the way, to date I have never used or had need of phantom power. I have my mp3 player (a separate, dedicated cell phone, really) plugged into one of the main four XLR channels (see diagram above) by means of an 1/8" to XLR cable, only because I can't get enough volume out of it otherwise using the remaining channels 5-10. Channels 1-4 have a "boosted" signal (pre-amps), whereas channels 5-10 do not, so, even with the mp3 player at full volume, and with individual channel volume set high, I cannot get enough sound from channels 5-10. You say that I should not use this set-up? (I suppose I could also use an 1/8" to 1/4" cable to accomplish the same thing, but only through the boosted channels 1-4, which brings me back to square one anyway.)
Sound quality is one of those often misunderstood (or rather ambiguous) phrases. Some people want it to mean that the mic (or other equipment) is as close to an original signal as possible (high fidelity). Another interpretation is that the equipment makes it sound good, or better (ie enhances or flatters the sound). The latter is purely subjective.I was unaware that the whole wireless format introduced negative issues regarding sound quality.
|Omni||Often a more faithful reproduction (better quality)||Will pick up more of the other instruments and ambience (off-axis sound), hence may be more difficult to rebalance the intended signal within a mix. Can be more prone to feedback due to ,picking up more off-axis signal.|
|Cardioid||Makes mixing easier as it focusses more on the specific signal it is being used for||Can be less faithful reproduction, because of the slight issues introduced by the method of filtering out off-axis sounds|
|Hypercardioid||As above but more so||As above but more so|
Pete, ya gotta be kidding me with your microphone information. In a recording studio, an omni picks up sound from the front and back, and rejects it from the side, and is rarely used, especially for sax. In live sound reinforcement, a cardioid picks up sound from the front, but the heart shaped pattern has virtually no pickup, which makes it great if you have a monitor in front of you. Maximum feedback rejection. A hypercardioid can be used for a clip on mic, but it does have some pickup to the rear, so some feedback can occur from a monitor there. A hyper can work well in live sound, but it needs to be a clip on mic like an ATM 35. Where you clip the mic on the bell makes a huge difference. I prefer clipping it from the top, but some people do it from the side or bottom. It depends on personal taste.Sound quality is one of those often misunderstood (or rather ambiguous) phrases. Some people want it to mean that the mic (or other equipment) is as close to an original signal as possible (high fidelity). Another interpretation is that the equipment makes it sound good, or better (ie enhances or flatters the sound). The latter is purely subjective.
So thinking about fidelity. This can mean lack of distortion, no loss or increase in specific frequencies, no or low introduced noise (hum hiss etc.)
It's anyone's choice what they prefer - some performers (especially when working without a good sound engineer) may want a mic that enhances or flatters, sound engineers may prefer fidelity in a mic so that they have control at the desk over what enhancements they may want to make.
So you should think about this when choosing a mic. It could be argued that when working with a decent out front mixer, the engineer may prefer to decide on the mic.
Another issue is the polar pattern. (Unless we go off on the red herring of ribbon mics) your main choices are omni, cardioid or hyper cardioid and there are pros and cons to consider.
Here are the pros and cons:
- Omni picks up everything equally
- cardioid is directional in that it picks up to a great extend what is directly in front of it
- Hypercardioid is the same but more so, ie a more focussed directionality.
Pro Con Omni Often a more faithful reproduction (better quality) Will pick up more of the other instruments and ambience (off-axis sound), hence may be more difficult to rebalance the intended signal within a mix. Can be more prone to feedback due to ,picking up more off-axis signal. Cardioid Makes mixing easier as it focusses more on the specific signal it is being used for Can be less faithful reproduction, because of the slight issues introduced by the method of filtering out off-axis sounds Hypercardioid As above but more so As above but more so
My preference with a clip is for omni, I find a directional clip often doesn't pick up the entire range as evenly because the sound doesn't come evenly out of the bell or any one position that close to the instrument. I use a very cheap omni, not because it's cheap but just because it sounds better than any other clip on I've tried. (less relevant in this thread as it is wired)
The pure wireless ATM I've got has a mute switch for tuning and such.On another note: Going wireless takes a bit of getting used to. You have some control over dynamic with a mic on a stand vs one that’s clipped on, and you can even turn away from it completely to adjust tuning (or find the key in a walk-on situation). When you’re wireless you’re at the mercy of the person behind the mixer.
AMT all the way. I've been using them on soprano and tenor since 2009, mostly touring. The company also has great customer service. Small U.S. company, products are worth the price.On the higher end of things AMT makes amazing mics and wireless systems that are compact. Both mic and transmitter are one unit, which I prefer as well. They also have a unique mic for soprano and bari.
AMT Saxophone Microphones
I had an old Samson that had this AMT design and loved it until the useable wireless frequencies made it obsolete.
The pure wireless ATM I've got has a mute switch for tuning and such.
Yes - The body pack for the Shure transmitter has one too, but it's fiddly in the dark and the green / amber indicator light looks the same color under stage lights sometimes. I used a "Cough Drop" for a while until I became more confident. (The Cough Drop is a floor switch you can step on to mute your mic, but it's also more piece of gear to keep up with) None of those let you 'back off' the mic however.
Eric - I'll answer your other questions later - I'm on a deadline today - Cheers!
I always used my ear to tell what key we played in, but usually the key was quite clear before the song began. Kind of amateur hour to start a song, and the sax player does not know the key. I had my tenor tuned at the factory.The pure wireless ATM I've got has a mute switch for tuning and such.
You need more than a speaker+mic+sax. You need a mixer, and the XLR input for the mic need a pre-amp to bring it up to line level signal. There is a knob for adjusting the pre-amp level, and also the volume level on that channel, and you also have a master volume control. You also need an amplifier to amplify the signal coming out of the mixer. Some mixers have reverb built in, but I always used a Lexicon reverb that was rack mounted. I guess you could mount a megaphone on a mic stand and use that for a true 1920's sound.Wow. You guys are the greatest. Fascinating information.
O.K. So, the so-called "pre-amp" seems to be a misnomer for an XLR adapter, in a sense. Now I understand. So the Shure Beta, nice as it looks, would also require an inline phantom-power supply, or else special accommodations on my console to apply phantom power there, while also preventing applying that power to my mp3 player. (I will find a less ignorant way to connect my mp3 player--Thanks) I think I like the idea of having a separate, inline phantom-power supply, for now, (or else, one built in to the system, as in the ATM35) because I am also trying to come up with a simpler solution for performing without a mixer at all, (speaker+mic+sax) leaving me without that option of phantom power, unless I buy a unit like the ATM35 with its own phantom-power supply. (I think I'll start a separate thread on reverb options)
And, as I've said before, leave it to Pete Thomas to provide a "practical" solution to every problem, even when it is contrary to prevailing popular opinions. I wish I had that kind of guts sometimes, and the talent to back it up, to prove that I was right.
(And I wish I could play like him, too -- he he)
Back to the subject...
What a keen observation about how folks define "sound quality."
Yes, even though it is off the subject of the original post, I am now leaning toward a wired clip-on, for the sake of higher-fidelity sound and fewer issues, such as interference, that I had been unaware of originally.
"Mute button?" Problem solved, Grumps. Thanks
You know, I never thought about the monitor issue. With a clip-on microphone, the angle of the mic will be directed a little more toward the monitor (or even toward my speakers). I guess I am in for a few surprises regarding feedback. Probably the best way to understand the difference between a stand mic and a clip-on, is to delve in and experiment.
I appreciate Styles' fantastic input on this whole subject from the very beginning, and his pointing out technical issues to take into consideration when greater technical playback and recording precision is required, and probably when I get to the degree of skill in which those issues become more relevant to my needs. For the moment, I might be satisfied to get the same sound as I have on the SM57, but without fading in and out as I move, and without having to boost the gain on the mixer so much, and without any new feedback issues.
It seems that Fader's Shure Beta mic requires phantom power also, so I assume that I would have to buy a separate, inline power supply, or else take along my mixing console, every time.
Not really. You Amy be getting quite a lot of misinformation in this thread. A pre-amp (in this case aka a mic amp) brings the level of the microphone up to line level for the mixer. An adaptor purely changes the type of plug or reroutes the wiring so you could plug a jack plug into XLR or vice versa. Some desk/interface inputs have a combo input so you can plug in either a (stereo) jack or XLR. Looks like this:O.K. So, the so-called "pre-amp" seems to be a misnomer for an XLR adapter, in a sense.
For most solo gigs there are quite a few "all in one" options (Powered Speaker / mixer / FX) that are more than suitable. The Roland BA 330 comes to mind as well as several of the Bose units.You need more than a speaker+mic+sax. You need a mixer, and the XLR input for the mic need a pre-amp to bring it up to line level signal. There is a knob for adjusting the pre-amp level, and also the volume level on that channel, and you also have a master volume control. You also need an amplifier to amplify the signal coming out of the mixer. Some mixers have reverb built in, but I always used a Lexicon reverb that was rack mounted. I guess you could mount a megaphone on a mic stand and use that for a true 1920's sound.