I never gave this much thought before but at last nights gig I had some inclinations. I play in a rock/blues band and have to play some fast passages through out the night. I have 2 of Greg Heumans custome harp mic's, a Wooden bullet and an Ultimate 57. I use each with his Airline wireless system. I use the "Woodie" on cretain songs and the 57 on others. I noticed last night that I seem to be able to play faster on the 57 than the Woodie. So I was thinking,the big element in the Woodie works better with a tight cup so the element deflects more" slower response time",BUT! The 57 is smaller and responds differnt than the Bullet "less mass to get moving" I'm no Jason Ricci but I can hold my own with fast passages. So I guess the question is, "Are some microphone elements faster responders than others"? Maybe it's just the way one fits my style better than the other but I would like to know if this is why Jason plays a 57 or a 545? Speculation aside I hope theres an exxpert out there in MBH space that knows. Im sure Greg will weigh in if no one else does. Mike
I don't honestly know but as you say the 57 element, an under 1" diameter piece of mylar thinner than a human hair has a lot less mass than a nearly 2" diameter CM or CR, with an aluminum cone for a diaphragm. That makes it more sensitive. ---------- /Greg
I don't know about response speed per se, but I know & have listened to players with a fair turn of speed use CRs and they didn't appear to be limited by the mic.
I might speculate that the extended frequency response of the dynamic gives the impression of better detail, tighter response, better front to the note? I have also played some darker sounding dynamics & can understand the perception of them being a little less "zippy". ---------- www.myspace.com/markburness
Interesting topic. I long held the opinion that faster players generally used dynamic mics, whereas guys more into big, fat, retro tone used bullet mics. But bullet-wielding speedsters like Sugar Blue, Mark Ford and Andy Just made me re-think. Wish I had something more constructive to add.
I definitely am of the opinion that the response of most bullets is slower than a good quality XLR style mic like a 545, SM57, SM58, RE-10, RE 15, Fireball, etc. Why? Because that's been my experience. I can actually play pretty fast when I choose to and when I sit in using another player's gear I usually have to slow down if I'm playing through a bullet. I think it has to do with the larger diaphragm.
It's not that one CAN'T play fast using a bullet, but in my experience, the articulation is not crisp playing at fast tempo, so i usually have to slow down a little if I'm playing through a bullet in order to sound good. It's not that I always play fast, but I like to use fast runs occasionally and I just can't play up to my capabilities using most bullets. Every now and then I'll come across a bullet that doesn't present this problem, but for the overwhelming most part I don't find that bullets respond as quick as a high quality XLR style mic.
Btw, i just sold an EV RE-10 to a less experienced player who had been using bullet mics exclusively. When I ran into him a couple of weeks later he kept talking about how much "quicker" the EV mic was. And his technique is not sufficiently developed to enable him to play particularly fast. So, I don't think my perception as to a difference in response is subjective. It's actually one of the reasons I generally don't like using bullet mics.
Last Edited by on Oct 03, 2011 6:33 AM
I think its the frequence response that makes a mic seem quicker or not. I don't know! I just don't see how a mic could slow down the signnal. Or speed it up. I guees maybe a smaller element might react faster because there is less surface material. I believe this would be in nano seconds and probably impossible for the humar ear to detect, but I don't know!
Cool! So it's not just me. I agree the crispness may be hiding in the back ground of the Bullet and the SM 57 is putting it right out front. It's just the feeling I get when I say about the bullet, "its slower to respond" I agree with "hvjy and 5F6H"comment about slowing down a tad with the bullet gets the notes back. Just another one of those things that make you go"Hummmm? Mike
Just a thought, but it may be nothing to do with the mic at all. My thinking is the "Airline wireless system" may need a few micro seconds more to process then re-transmit some frequencies which some mics may produce more of.
Wireless doesn't have anything to do with it. I've played on some wireless rigs through XLR mics and response was fine. Wireless may add a little compression and/or a sort of preamp effect which actually sounds pretty cool, but does not slow down response.
If it's a digital wireless system it may. I wouldn't rule it out so quickly.
I have absolutely no experience with wireless mic systems but I used to design cutting edge digital systems for the telecomms industry and I know for a fact that digital processing of sound can introduce delays which although miniscule can be perceived to be much worse. ----------
Well, you obviously know a lot about it, but Shredder is using BOTH mics through his wireless, so it shouldn't be the differentiating factor in his situation.
I'm not putting myself up as a digital sound Guru here hvyj but I know a little bit more than the man in the street perhaps. The most important lesson I learnt with digital systems, is take nothing for granted and make absolutley no assumptions. Some very weird things can happen in the digital world and sytems can behave in ways in which you can't predict. ----------
@ tookatooka, I guess weird thinks can happen but like hvyj said I'm just unplugging the Xmitter out of one mic and plugging it into the other with no changes to the rest of the chain. Jason Ricci had or has the same wireless rig I'm using with out delay or wireless "latencey" issues. Mike
Thinking logically about how quickly you can move your body parts relative to how quickly any mic element needs to vibrate to react to different sound frequencies, a noticeably different response rate of those two types of mic's seems unlikely. However distortion and feedback could bleed across the time scales relevant to how quickly you can change mouth shape or breathing in and out tongue slap etc.
also, it could be part of what is called "attack", too... Mics, with various different elements(cM, cR, dynamic, or crystal)of the same type, can vary with frequency hot spots...and it is simply our hearing ability, or inability,that make us think it is faster... Perhaps, it is the speaker too. Small(8's, 10's and 12's) can handle fast playing, and bigger (15's)...would be stretchin it...the cone only can handle so much quick playing... And, why not throw in....the speaker, amp, and mic, chemistry? Yeah, like HVYJ says about the RE10...funny how that is true. I have one, too. And I can hear everything better. It must have a wider range that my ear can pick up. I usually have a hearing problem with the mid to higher registers. So maybe it only appears to be 'faster'. Go ask an audio and acoustics engineer! ...is that a real title? maybe someone can give us a definitive answer.
-------- Why is it that we all just can't get along?<
Last Edited by on Oct 03, 2011 10:32 PM
As Walterharp has said, any commonly used element is faster than you are - even the mics with restricted high end, like CM/CR still are rated to 5000Hz (or 5000 cycles per second as it used to be called), Astatic crystals to around 10,000Hz, so it's very unlikely indeed that any harp player is going to catch their element napping! ;-)
Most dynamic wand mics tend to have the frequency response extend to 15000-18000Hz (older 50's dynamics found in bullets tend to have less high end capability). Now these frequencies are well above the fundamental frequency of any note on your harp, they are also beyond what a tube amp speaker array might easily reproduce, but what these high frequencies do help with is fidelity/detail/crispness. It's not that the mic is "faster" (though in it's basic sense, frequency is speed) with respect to being able to keep up with a player, but the higher frequencies make it easier to hear the leading edge & detail of a note.
Presence controls on amps work in a similar way, boosting frequencies way higher than the speakers can reproduce in terms of fundamentals, but focussing the higher frequencies better. Similar can be said for tone controls, heavy mids adversely affect fidelity/crispness, dialling those out & adding treble improves fidelity/detail.
Carrying this logic on Mojokane undoubtedly has a point regarding mic frequency response & any mid humps/tonal characteristics that might work like the tone controls.
Think of it like an engine, if you're on a motorcycle doing 120MPH at 6000RPM most guys, by the seat of their pants, are probably going to judge it as slower than 120MPH at 13000RPM...it's still 120MPH it's just the perception that's different, not that it makes the point moot, because we are driven by our perceptions.
Now, stick an RE10, or 545 element into a bullet shell & what happens...;-) It's the element, not the shell/wand/bullet. ---------- www.myspace.com/markburness
Last Edited by on Oct 04, 2011 2:05 AM
I've read that about Sugar Blue and Son of Dave and Pat Ramsey - dynamic elements like the 57 in a bullet shell.
A long time ago, like 7 years ago, I wanted to do something like this. I bought a SM57 and a shell, but when I asked around for someone to build one for me, no one had any idea of how to tackle that project. ---------- Mike Quicksilver Custom Harmonicas
I have seen Lee Sankey play many times, the guy can pull off unbelievably controlled licks with pitch perfect bends at a speed that you wouldn't believe...he did this with either an Astatic crystal or a CM/CR element...
Pasted from the SoD interview at Harp Surgery, he says earlier he stopped using crystals because he broke them... "SoD: I use a really ugly one: Shure beta 57. It’s a very clean, excellent microphone and when you switch up the impedance it’s very very loud… So for any kind of tone you rely on your playing and the amplifier rather than the dirty mic sound. But I’ve been taking the guts out of 57s and, what are they called, Unidynes? I’ve been taking the guts out and trying to put them into bullet shapes, ‘cos the long shape is a pain for the harp player, and doesn’t have a particular look to it. But it screws with the sound. Just don’t bother. It’s hard to get it all out without wrecking it…"
Looks like just a regular 545, or 540 here...
Harpninja it's not difficult in essence, just a lot of hassle & not very cost effective. I know a couple of guys who have fitted 545 elements into Astatic shells with varying degrees of success, Steve Warner's Thunderharp mics were a variation on this theme but with an undisclosed dynamic, wand mic element.
---------- www.myspace.com/markburness
Last Edited by on Oct 04, 2011 7:18 AM
Cool topic and responces. I knew there was some thing diffrent going on with my set up. By the way I'm playing thru a Bassman reissue and a HG2 via a passave splitter"Morley A/B pedal" just to clear things up. Mike
