I was at a venue tonight pondering microphones and one man bands and the issues involving playing harmonica and singing through the same microphone. It occurred to me that a foot pedal could switch effects on and off, but that seemed like a kind of old fashioned way to do things, and cumbersome for you guys who are busy stomping on drums. I started wondering. I know I read somewhere about software that could isolate individual instrument tracks in a mixed version of a song, even if they are on the same track, but I was wondering, is there a pedal for that?
The wave forms for harmonica (or any other instrument you might be alternating playing with vocals with) should be different enough for software/hardware to recognize the difference. After that it would be pretty easy to get it to switch output channels from one effect loop to another (or on a multi-effect machine to just change effects). Is there a pedal or software or whatever to do that? It could also help balance volumes between vocals and harp I'm a soft singer/fairly loud player. The idea of it doing it automatically has me intrigued.
Just wondering, and if there isn't maybe someone with some technical know-how needs to get on it. :)
There ARE pedals that could control your effects on this Nate. There is a drawback on a lot of them however. They usually run with a higher gain, which equals increased risk of feedback. Rockin' Ron has a series of decently priced Danelectro FAB pedals that are individually geared for different effects, and musiciansfriend stocks a few of the models that Ron doesn't carry.
In terms of a looper, there are also pedals for this. Don't know of a good model off the top of my head because I've never really had a need for one. But I have a couple one man act friends here in town that use them as well as chorus effect pedals so they have harmony singing with them.
One mic you might consider however, is the Nady Bushman Torpedo. I have a busking buddy who uses one to both sing through and play harp on. It scratches the tone of his voice up a bit, but not like a bullhorn or anything. And then when he closes his hands around it, pretty decent tone on harp. Nady apparently designed this mic to be versatile this way. Might be a good idea for what you're talking about. ---------- Hawkeye Kane
I have spent a year working on a OMB set-up...my first totally solo show (more than 3-4 consecutive songs) is tonight, so I am not a pro by any means!
My immediate suggesting is get an Ultimate 57 or 58...or any good sounding dynamic mic that you can use with a volume control.
What I do is use two mics - one for vocals and one for my instrument rig. However, I can get away with just my instrument rig...I use an Ultimate 57 and adjust my volume and dynamics from there...If this were the case, I would not use an amp, but just the PA.
Here is my rig...I will post pics this week. I meant to take some last night, but I forgot.
AKG D5 or Ultimate 57
Kinder AFB+ (usually don't use it)
POG2
Boomerang III looper (the BEST live looping pedal on the market...I can loop up to four individual tracks of totally separate lengths! I usually just stack most my loops, though, as it is easier to time).
Tech 21 Sansamp Bass Driver DI..I take an unaffected out from this to my amp (which until yesterday was a VHT Special 6). I take the XLR out to my QSC K10...the lineout from the K10 feeds the board. I always have FULL control of my monitor mix.
The Bass Driver let's me shape my tone and blend it with an unaffected signal. I use the pedal live with a full band now when I don't use an amp. This is CRUCIAL to my setup as it is a DI and an EQ and can add drive to the sound. I used to run straight from the looper to the board, but that was instrument level and I had no control over the EQ other than from the board.
I sometimes insert my M13 inbetween the Rang and Bass DI, but I will not tonight as it is too much work for a one hour set. On Saturday, I will, though. I use it for effects and as a back-up looper.
The above setup has me on two channels for instrumentation - one to the PA and another to the amp - I then use the amp for stage volume and mix both signals FOH. I tend to like the amp tone to be the more prominent of the two.
***I also have a Kuchel Stompbox. I usually run this into the 2nd channel of the K10 and mix it through the monitor. The lineout form the K10 sends the exact same mix FOH. For tonight, for example, the sound man only needs to worry about three signals even though I am using at least four different signals.
I don't worry about using the lineout FOH as it will not be the prominent mix and even if I ran there first, he wouldn't have any more control. What he gets for harmonica/bass/drums is always going to be on one channel anyways. It is less work to feed him one XLR cable then three or for.
FWIW, I am 100% comfortable doing all of this with one channel FOH. I prefer at least two so I can sing into a different mic.
This sounds complicated, but really, it isn't. If I really wanted to, I could had the sound guy one XLR cable and be totally set up. I figure it is still less work for him to handle three inputs than a full band.
Just to clarify, I have ran this exact rig into a full PA several times with no issues. That is at home, though. Live, I have only ever done the amp-less rig where I have a vocal mic and then one channel of instrumentation. It worked really well too.
The software that cancels out vocals will only work on the elements that are panned direct centre. It works by inverting on side, so that phase-cancellelation knocks out the audio. The better systems add some 'intelligent' filtering into the process.
I don't know of anything commercially available now that can filter out only one instrument by any other means, other than audio filters. Could you remove just the eggs from a cake once it's baked? Could you do it and still have an intact cake? even less likely! and that's essentially what your trying to do here.
The switching idea is more feasible, but Idoubt it's commercially viable and I don't know of anything available. The fact that it's something that can be far more easily and cheaply undertaken with an AB switch will mean that there never will be anything.
I was just going to suggest an A/B switch. Long name you beat me to it. That is the obvious 1st choice. Now I have read that they use to make a slight snapping noise when switched, but I believe this could be tammed with a capaciter. Now this is from my not so good memory of about 18 years ago. If they are still made they may have figured out how to make them by now. No don't use the same mic for both.
The obvious choice is not an A/B pedal and it would probably be one of my last suggestions.
If you're looking for creating an "amped" tone and turning that off/on between singing phrase, I'd suggest the Tech 21 Sansamp products or the Lonewolf Harp BREAK...NOT the attack.
Neither should pop or otherwise be noticeable.
I don't think the A/B pedal is a good choice as it requires two different outputs. If you had the room for two different outputs, then you'd have the room for two different mics (either you'd use two channels to the board or you'd use a vocal mic and then an amp).
An A/B pedal also won't control any of the volume, tone, or EQ characteristics of the mic. It would be the exact same as not using it...unless you had the two outputs going to two inputs, which would, again, mean you'd have enough PA inputs, pedals, or amps to work with two separate signals anyways.
The easiest solution is to get a good multi-purpose mic with a volume control. Watch the Filisko vid. He does a great job of describing your EXACT situation - down to the soft vocals - and he doesn't use any gear other than the mic (he even tells you what mics to use).
If the issue is you want a cupped harmonica sound, then use the volume control. Set the max volume for vocals, which is easy to adjust by proximity after that, and turn down the volume when blowing. This will let you add presence to the vocals that will essentially be sucked away by playing harmonica to the mic with the volume being turned down.
$55 for the volume control from Greg Heumann
$99 for a new SM58 or SM57 (come on, you can get these all day used for under $75)
$20 for a decent length and quality XLR to XLR cable (if you even need one)
Hell, you are short on money, just get the volume control. 90% of all in-house PA's will have the equivalent of either of those mics and a cable. Just insert the volume control and your done.
No pedals, no adapters, no transformers, no amps, no nothing....
If you feel naked, just turn another vocal mic upside down and let it pick up the sound of your foot stomping on the stage.
Spend the extra money on a tambourine and put that next to the foot you are stomping with. Now you have a bass drum, hi-hat, harmonica, and vocals...full real-time "band" sound for under $75.
I wasn't recommending an AB box for this application - just pointing out that from a developer's point of view it just wouldn't be viable to develop a technology that could intelligently detect the signal and then switch apropriately (which is what the OP is about) when a simple and far cheaper unintelligent solution exists.
Besides I know that harp players think the universe revolves around them, but really - what application does a technology like that have in the real world of audio? a world of gazillion channel digital desks and the like. One man band harp players is a tiny subset of an already niche market. Unless there's a big need for it - an obvious problem dying to be solved - it ain't gonna happen! Hell! even Lonewolf has recognised that the harp players' market just isn't big enough and has started making Guitar pedals.
Frankly speaking - just how hard is it to sing into one mic and play into another?
Last Edited by on Oct 06, 2011 8:14 AM
I agree, hence posting the Filisko vid. I am sure this is more a matter of just thinking outside the box and daydreaming, but there are extremely simple solutions for using one mic to a PA for more than one instrument. ---------- Mike Quicksilver Custom Harmonicas
Yes HarpknowitallNinja I was talking about useing two mics. Thats why I said, I wouldn't the same mic for both. Usually vocal mics aren't the best chioce for harp mics and visa versa. If you have a good (expensive) amp than you can just ran both mics to the amp, but It is quit possible to click back and forth. If A/B switchs do still make a noise when switched there is a mod to deal with it. That was at least 15 years ago. As I said there was a mod for it. So I'm sure somebody was dealt with that. Why bother? Some amps have an input that works better than the others. Heck some amps only have one input. A/B swithchs were designed for limited situations (low budget gigging). There is always a way of spending alot of money on musical equipment.
If one mic is good enough for Joe Filisko, then it is too good for me.
Almost all "harmonica" mics were originally designed for other purposes, namely voice applications. Something like the SM57 is a tried a true vocal mic and a good mic for harmonica.
The OP specifically asked about a scenario where only one mic was being used. He also mentioned that he didn't want to do a lot of stomping on and off. I did suggest a couple of options if he was going the pedal route, which would still be more helpful than even the best A/B, but that wouldn't be my first recommendation either.
I did comment on my rig at length mostly to put my opinion in perspective and to maybe answer any questions he might have as a follow-up. As someone with at least some gigging experience with similar formatting, I have at least a little insight.
I have also totally done exactly what I was suggesting. This summer I did a 20min set outside at a festival. I just used my Ultimate 57 straight into the PA per my recommendation above. I used no effects and sang through the mic as well as played harmonica through it (we had setup inside as a duo and then 5min before we were to go on, we were asked to fill a 20min block on the outdoor stage before staring our actual show...I was way too lazy to do it any other way).
No one booed...people even clapped. I don't recall anyone plugging their ears, throwing things, or running for the hills. I played Another Man Done Gone and then a solo boogie piece I wrote as an instrumental. We then played some acoustic blues with the guitar in the mix. YMMV
Thanks for all the responses. I wish I could find the article on the software they were using to pull individual instruments out of the mix. It wasn't using the balance trick for vocals but actually analyzing the sounds and pulling the instruments apart based on an analysis of the tones involved. I think they were using it in the context of remastering old vintage records (using a laser instead of a record needle to get clean copies, as if the software trick wasn't enough!)
I wasn't thinking so much about the microphone as the effect pedals after the mic. I've been messing around with some crazy effects and was just in a weird situation where I didn't have a guitar player with me. It just seemed like something where a little computer power might make something easier.
I'd think from a cost point of view if someone were going to develop something like this it would more likely be someone using off the shelf hardware and fancy programming, maybe someone running their effects through a computer instead of a pedal.
I have no idea how much processing power it would take. If it was a simple matter of pitch I'd think it would be something an iPhone app could do (although try finding an iPhone with a 1/4 inch jack!) You'd have to set a threshold so it didn't switch when it heard a back up singer across the stage singing. I was trying to think of other applications for the idea. I realize the subset of musicians who are doing something with their hands, feet and mouth and who want to switch the effects on their microphone at the same time they are busy doing everything else has got to be pretty small. you are basically limited to people doing percussion or maybe amputees.
I always think there has got to be a better way to do things. For instance, one time we were jamming in a garage and we needed distortion on the guitar, but only on the chorus. The problem was there was no musical break and we didn't have a pedal, just the button on the amp. We fixed that problem in a simple, elegant way. We got our bass player's younger brother who knew nothing about music to stand next to the amp with his finger on the button. At the crucial moment the guitar player stepped on his foot, triggering him to push the button. It worked perfectly. Work smarter, not harder. :)
I guess maybe the technology just isn't ready. I suspect as pedals get smarter someone may realize that they have all the pieces in place on one device already and they just need to throw one switch and it will work. I could see a market maybe for vocalists who are sharing a microphone and using an FX pedal. If it could recognize different voices it could put different effects on each one. Maybe that technology might come from someone developing it for voice recognition applications. Anyway, it was a thought. Thanks again.
