Audix Om7: The Live Performance Vocal Mic that Delivers Clear, Feedback-Free Vocals
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 жов 2019
- The Audix Om7 is a live performance vocal mic that is designed to have exceptional off axis rejection to reduce feedback and stage splash resulting in clean, clear vocals in your mix.
Products you may be interested in:
Audix OM7 microphone amzn.to/3OmzBZX
Audix OM6 microphone amzn.to/3mTzGZq
Audix OM5 microphone amzn.to/3OeWRsL
Audix OM3 microphone amzn.to/39qIYZA
Audix OM2 microphone amzn.to/3xwAtnR
Shure SM58 microphone amzn.to/3QmFs3d
Shure Beta 58a microphone amzn.to/39qJh6G
Shure SM57 microphone amzn.to/3QpYPrV
Shure SM86 microphone amzn.to/3u1qMgv
AKG D5 microphone amzn.to/3MUr6E3
Get the gear you need and help support this channel without costing you extra.
If you purchase a product or service using the links that I provide in this description I may receive a small commission.
There is no additional charge to you!
Thank you for your support.
Excellent Video, very didactic
Glad you liked it!
Hi Barry,
I agree with you. Currently the OM7 is my favorite for my type of voice. I do not normally perform on loud stages, and the type of venues are generally small and intimate. However, since I'm a bass baritone, the SM58 doesn't serve me well in the lows and the highs aren't that crisp either. EV 967 and 457B served me for years, however, the OM7 has a much clearer bass response and EVs seem a bit muddy in the lows by comparison.
What I have found to upscale the OM7 was the use of a Fethead/Cloud lifter since turning up the preamp volume would introduce unwanted hiss. The use of a pre-preamplifier (Fethead in my case) also improved the general response across the spectrum and dynamics of the mic without introducing any coloration.
Some day I would like to try a condenser, but not sure about their feedback rejection.
Yes, the OM7 has relatively low output level, so it requires a little more preamp gain than most mics. This, of course, gets you a few db closer to the noise floor. I have not found this to be a problem in my usage, but my situation may differ from yours.
I suspect there are condenser/capacitor mics designed for live vocals that would work nicely for you (like the Shure SM86, Beta 87 etc), but the best mic for you is something you'll have to discover through experimentation. Condenser mics often have greater signal output than dynamics, so if the preamp noise floor is an issue for you, this might be helpful.
Best wishes!
Thank you Barry!! Your video made me want to go and buy one! I use a Shure KSM 9 , and it is just the bomb! But it is so expensive that each time I use it in a gig, I wish I could go back to my SM58. If it even get scratched I will cry!!!! Haha... I think you’ve convinced me to get an OM7! There’s a shop here in Melbourne Australia selling it for $200 brand new...
Excellent! Would be nice if you could rent or try one before making a purchase. I think the OM7 is a great choice, but it has such a tight pattern that requires good mic technique to deliver on it's potential. I've seen many vocalists who have no issues at all, and some others who struggle with staying on-mic with the OM7. It's one of my fave live vocal mics, works great for loud(er) bands on stage.
@@Barry-Watson That "tight pattern" sounds a lot like my ksm9. I usually have to be no more than 2 inches away and the off axis rejection is also like the OM7 you described. But you are right. I do wish I could try one...
Thanks for your great work with your videos!
I use a DBX Drive Rack to get rid of all my feedback, what I looking for very good shouting mic, which at moment I'm using shure SM58, but looking something little bit better.
There's no magic device or mic that will totally eliminate all potential feedback, but the OM7 will be more resistant to feedback on stage than a SM58. The 58 is a good mic, but the OM7 has a super-tight pattern. My experience is that feedback usually happens when vocal mics get too much bleed from the stage monitors, a good way to fix that issue is to eliminate the stage monitors and use in-ear monitoring. If you can lower the stage volume, it reduces the chances of feedback, and generally provides cleaner, better sounding shows for the audience.
Any system with total loop gain over unity can feedback, the real solution is to reduce gain, typically that means a bit lower stage volume.
The less linear (flat response/accurate) the system is, the more unstable it tends to be. Bands who use lower-quality speakers, or a hodge-podge of several different models of vocal mics, and/or a mix of varying models of stage monitors tend to have more issues with stability then those who have systems comprised of nice gear and are using all the same vocal mics and all the same monitors. If all the mics and monitors are the same, it's a lot more possible that some modest EQ correction can provide decent gain before feedback.
would i be able to plug this into a behringer xenyx 802 and a focusrite scarlett 18i20 3rd gen? would this be able to boost it enough to a good level?
I suspect your preamps would have enough gain, but you'll find your gain settings a bit higher than with a similar dynamic mic.
My Focusrite USB interface does not offer huge mic gain, so I suspect I'd be near the top, but still usable. With this device, I get the best results using capacitor/condenser mics that have high signal output.
Having said that, this mic really shines on loud, live, stages. If that's not your application, for example podcasting or small studio recording, I think there are other mics that are probably a better choice.
Hi Barry I am a metal vocalist I do screams and growls would you recommend an Audix for that type of vocals?
Sure! The best mic for you is a personal choice. I've done lots of metal shows using Audix OM7s and OM5s, and I think they cut through the mix well, and work great for higher stage volumes.
Is the om7 good for singing vocal recording? I was thinking of avoiding headphone bleed.
I'd tend to reach for a condenser mic for a recording situation. I don't think of a OM7 as a studio mic, but I'm sure it would work. It may actually be a better choice than a "studio" mic if you have a room with difficult acoustics to deal with.
Hi Barry. From the OM microphones that you have, is the foam inside the grid thick or thin? Is the capsule marked in the foam? I have had an OM5 for more than 10 years that still works, the foam is thin, the capsule does not touch the foam and therefore does not leave marks when removing the grill. But I bought an OM7 a couple of days ago and it has thick foam, so much so that the capsules touch the foam, leaving marks on it. I have gone to the stores that sell the OM series and I have checked the grids and currently they all have thick foam, and the capsule mark is visible in the foam. I would appreciate it if you could check if any of yours (the newest ones I suppose) have thick foam and if you can compare with others that have thin foam and see if they have any difference in sound that are the same model but with different foam and if it is possible that you make a video explaining these differences in the versions of the OM (thick and thin foam) and the advantages and disadvantages that it can have with respect to sound and with respect to the humidity that can transfer from the foam to the capsule. I have seen an article on the Rat Sound System company website that talks about these differences in foam that I believe that over the years Audix has varied on different occasions between thick foam and thin foam. I have consulted Audix directly and they have responded that their microphones are currently coming out with thick foam. Thanks for your content.
That's an interesting question!
My mics are older OM series , and I would say that they have the thinner foam in them. They seem to work fine, I don't have any compulsion to make any modifications.
I would defer to Audix on this one, they engineered the product so they should know it better than anybody, and they have the test facilities to really measure the impact of design changes. If Audix believes that the thicker foam is a better choice, I would trust them. Of course manufacturers may also make minor revisions based upon material availability etc. Bigger issue might be simply old versus new foam. Dirty crusty old foam that's full of spittle and has become brittle is probably worse than the new stuff, regardless of thickness.
I'll have to check what Dave Rat has to say on this topic, I have a lot of respect for Dave, but I also have a lot of respect for the engineering team at Audix.
If I ordered replacement foam, and the replacement was a thicker new version I would have no reservations about using it and expecting good results. But, obviously I haven't done a side by side listening test but I would assume that a minor difference in foam thickness isn't going to have a very radical change on the character of the mic.
If you do replace your foam with the different revision and it seems to have an impact on the performance I'd like to hear about it. Cheers, and best wishes!
Thanks for your comments Barry. It's curious because the customer service in Spanish (for Latin America) simply answered that Audix now uses thick foam. However, the US customer service gave me a slightly longer response explaining that they actually use a variation and that apparently I had that variation. They told me that there are parts of their foam rolls that are thinner and others. parts that are thicker. So I didn't understand very well if he was referring to the fact that due to the difference in the foam rolls, sometimes microphones come out with thin foam and sometimes with thick foam and that it is not a variation that they have defined, or that it really is a variation that they made premeditated for an engineering issue. I responded that all the microphones that are for sale in various stores that I was able to review here in my country have thick foam and they (USA customer service) responded again that they would see it with the factory and that they thanked me for letting them know have commented that. So it is not clear to me if it is a voluntary variation or something fortuitous depending on the availability of foam they have. In any case, they very kindly sent me replacement foams at no cost for the satisfaction guarantee of my new OM7 that I just bought a couple of days ago (That reinforced the trust and satisfaction I have with the brand). Those replacement foams are on the way, but I was testing by changing the thick foam grilles on my new microphone and the thin foam grilles on my old microphones. (I have old OM5 and OM2 both thin foam and now new OM7 with thick foam). I put a grid with thick foam and with thin foam on each of the models and I did notice a significant difference. The thick foam made the microphone sound louder and in a lower tone, not necessarily good or bad in general terms, I think that's subjective and Audix is always a good sound anyway. But it is precisely the character of each model that could be at play, personally for me Audix is characterized by a more crystalline and bright sound, that is why I liked it in principle and have acquired several models. On the other hand, the issue of the foam touching the capsule could cause moisture from the saliva to pass into the capsule more quickly. My OM5 that I have had for more than 10 years, although it has a fine foam, still the humidity caused the capsule at the top to rust a little. I think that this rust has not affected the sound quality although I could not be 100% sure since I am not an expert, but I still use the microphone and it has worked well for me (I will soon buy a new OM5 and compare the sound between the oxidized capsule and the capsule. new). Do any of your older microphones have rust on the capsule? Based on your knowledge and experience, do you think this is relatively normal for old microphones? Some time ago I learned that microphones must be constantly cleaning the foams and grilles so as to avoid the transfer of moisture to the capsule. From now on I do it on all my microphones, but on the OM5, what is the The oldest one I have, I didn't do it originally so that may be the cause of the rust on the capsule. Greetings.
Wow, interesting. The capsules on my OM mics look ok, they're old but I don't see any rust or problems with them. They still capture noise so I guess they're working.
I'm going to refer you to Tom Onofrio, he's a Neumann mic expert, and he did amazing service on my vintage mics. The guy is an absolute wizard at microphones, and I would say he's one of the top microphone experts on the planet. He can hear (and fix) minor artifacts in microphones that are way beyond me, and I think I have pretty decent ears.
I don't know if he knows anything about Audix brand mics, and dynamic mics aren't really his thing, but if anybody knows, he knows.
If you need to have a Neumann mic cleaned, or rebuilt, that's his specialty, he's the guy. He was the guy at Neumann factory service for decades, now independent.
Give him a call, tell him you found him via me and my UA-cam vids. I would trust his expert opinion on anything microphones.
Tom Onofrio
203 317-7762
Also, i'm happy to hear that Audix took good care of you.
I've always been loyal to their brand, and it's good to see that they really stand behind their product.
Thank you very much Barry.
What kind of video setup did you use for this?
That was a while ago, and I rarely use the same setup twice. Wasn't a very good camera. I don't recall the exact setup. Good light is more important than a fancy camera. With good lighting, even a low-end camera these days can produce workable video. These days I use a Canon DSLR using a 24 or 50mm prime lens, with an external audio recorder and you can see the quality difference between these old videos and the more recent ones.
It’s hard to actually give recommendations on microphones. Especially if you need to be really disciplined with your microphone technique. This microphone would be every singer‘s, podcaster‘s and streamer‘s dream come true in the spill / feedback reduction, if it wasn’t for the fact, that your sound gets hurt really fast if you don’t keep the microphone, where it belongs. 😅
True, and thanks. The OM7 is the mic I tend to grab most often for rock acts. On some singers it can be a little edgy, but generally I like the sound and it cuts the mix. Most performers have no issue, but some do struggle to stay on-mic with such a tight pattern. Usually they self correct when they hear the monitors. As always, there no one mic that's best for every situation, and there are a lot of great vocal mics to choose from.