EV N/D 967

[TerrapinStation]

First off, thank you to whoever was responsible for the vocal forum!

A few months ago, after reading some great reviews on the EV 967, I bought one. Using it in my basement for practices, I was very impressed w/ how it sounded, and how much power it has. It completely blew my SM 57 and 58 away, and actually sounded better than another singers Beta 57.

The problem I"m having is this. Our sound guy supplies us w/ mikes (Beta 57's), so I've only ever used the 967 'out' one time. That one time was at a party, and we ran sound ourselves. I heard from a few people that my vocals sounded muffled, very 'bassy', and overall just not good.

Now I"m planning on doing some acoustic shows, and there are some electric shows that we may have to do without our soundguy. I'm worried about the sound of this mike. I know it has a ton of bottom end. Has anyone ever used one of these? If so, how did you have the settings to make it sound decent? i know everyone's voice is different, and that's a big part of it. I play in basically a classic rock band, and my voice is naturally deep. Any advice would be much appreciated! Thanks!

[TerrapinStation]

Seriously? Nobody's used or tested this mike?

[gearo999]

I use a 767 and I love it. No issues at all. It replaced my SM58 and beta 58. Very full and clear with no spikes in the bass.

[Caspar]

I use the 967 when I need more gain before feedback than the 767 (my fav mic btw) gives me. The sound is nice and clear for big rock and never muffled. I think the problem is coming from somewhere else in the chain. All around a very nice vocal-mic. And I always use the mixers high-pass filter on the vocals so that any unnecessary low-end is taken out.

[ZenFly]

I use the 967 and love it. I had sent my ancient (15 years old) N/D857 back to get the foam and hand hold replaced...they said nope, can't do it..obsolete! So they offered me a 967 for $85 ...the rest is history. It basically sounds much like my old mike. Very flat yet warm and powerful no upper end bump like my Sennhieser e...also a nice mic but my voice tends to have a built in edge anyway.

to the OP, use the mic you want if at all possible.

[Miket156]

The 967 is made for use in areas where you get a lot of reflection and then feedback because everything bounces off everything in the building and causes feedback. The frequency response is 50hz to 13KHz, which is worse than an SM58. I own the 767 and the response is about 70hz to 22KHz. Being that I can sing some pretty low notes, this works better from me than my old SM58. I can sing into the Tenor range, but am primarily a Baritone. If you had a high or squeaky voice, the 967 might be OK, but I really don't think that's a good mike if you primarily sing in the lower range. All you can do is reduce the low end and boost the high frequencies in your mixer. If you're a baritone, save up for a 767, its a great mic, lots of power for live gigs and a great range. I will never go back to an SM58.

Mike T.

[Zon5string]

I don't know the 967, but I love my 757.

Do you use the "personality switch"?