The Canadian Guitar Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,026 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've seen this on many old (usually early 70's) videos and wondered what the reason for taping two mics together for the vocalists as in this example. I assumed it had to do with sub par PA equipment perhaps needing to send to two low powered PA amps or something but I have no idea. Any of you sound guys out there that can enlighten me as to why this was done?

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,612 Posts
I do not know why that guy did it but he might use both tracks to enhance power of his voice relative to the band at output or work different effects on each track. Same if he was recording both mic. Or maybe he just uses them to make sure at least one works properly...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,550 Posts
It seems to me I saw Bob Seger do the same back around 75. I figured he was just trying to get more output, or it was for show.

In 75 I was 14 (not a sound man yet).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,253 Posts
I was told one that it was used in conjunction with a gate type of thing. Any sideways sounds that hit the mics simultaneously would be omitted while those sounds with the micro-second delay (distance as sound travels and hits one diaphragm then the next one).

Could be just a theory that I was told.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,863 Posts
I've seen double mics for redundancy, for effects (the 2nd mic going through filtering to sound low bandwidth, megaphony or something similar), and for a separate broadcast feed. Better hardware and electronics has negated the 2nd and 3rd reasons, IME.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mawmow

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,178 Posts
No. Its for feedback suppression. It involves playing with phase and eq. Sometimes the second ( or even a third) mic was backwards for this reason ( see Woodstock footage). Microphone gain before feedback was not so great back in those days ( if you look close at the product lit for the Shure SM58 you will still see how they draw attention to it having a high gain before feedback, this is a legacy of that era and nobody really cares anymore). On shittier mixers with weak preamps double micing like that could get you the volume you wanted, but that would be smaller shittier shows.

For a broadcast feed they'd usually take the mixer output vs individual channels , but even if they did easier to use the mixers channel inserts as an improvised direct out.

Basically, every time you see a vid of a ‘live’ performance from that era, the 2( or more) mics is the tip off that it wasnt lip synched.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,585 Posts
No. Its for feedback suppression. It involves playing with phase and eq. Sometimes the second ( or even a third) mic was backwards for this reason ( see Woodstock footage). Microphone gain before feedback was not so great back in those days ( if you look close at the product lit for the Shure SM58 you will still see how they draw attention to it having a high gain before feedback, this is a legacy of that era and nobody really cares anymore). On shittier mixers with weak preamps double micing like that could get you the volume you wanted, but that would be smaller shittier shows.

For a broadcast feed they'd usually take the mixer output vs individual channels , but even if they did easier to use the mixers channel inserts as an improvised direct out.

Basically, every time you see a vid of a ‘live’ performance from that era, the 2( or more) mics is the tip off that it wasnt lip synched.
This what I heard as well from a guitarist who also did audio engineering for a small recording studio & live sound.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top