Is there anything that really sets the Shure SM57 apart from other
dynamic mics. I have a Shure PG58 which I use to mic my cabinet and
for some vocals. Will the sm57 really sound different?

Matt wrote:

Is there anything that really sets the Shure SM57 apart from other
dynamic mics. I have a Shure PG58 which I use to mic my cabinet and
for some vocals. Will the sm57 really sound different?

The SM57 will undoubtedly sound like the cheap indifferent POS it is.

Graham

Matt wrote:
Is there anything that really sets the Shure SM57 apart from other
dynamic mics. I have a Shure PG58 which I use to mic my cabinet and
for some vocals. Will the sm57 really sound different?

Yes. It will actually have some top end. Not much, mind you, but some.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article ,
(Matt) writes:

Is there anything that really sets the Shure SM57 apart from other
dynamic mics. I have a Shure PG58 which I use to mic my cabinet and
for some vocals. Will the sm57 really sound different?

I've never heard the PG58 but my guess is that its a budget SM58 which does
sound different than a 57. Every different mic has a unique sound even though
the difference between models might be slight. Its just a question of what you
prefer.

The SM 57 has been a staple for so many years that its become part of the sound
of popular music. Of course most listeners dont know that but the engineers do.
If you doing classical music or critical recording of acoustic instruments then
I think a good case can be made for using expensive mics such as Schoeps
because you're trying to faithfully document an acoustic event rather than
create a sonic painting. But if you are trying to create a sonic painting then
all bets are off and whatever gives you the desired effect is the "best" tool
for the job no matter what the cost.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

Is there anything that really sets the Shure SM57 apart from other dynamic
mics.

Yes. Everybody (everybody in the pro audio world, at least,) knows exactly what
a 57 sounds like.


Scott Fraser

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Matt wrote:
Is there anything that really sets the Shure SM57 apart from other
dynamic mics. I have a Shure PG58 which I use to mic my cabinet and
for some vocals. Will the sm57 really sound different?

Yes. It will actually have some top end. Not much, mind you, but some.

LMAO !

Graham

Garthrr wrote:

If you doing classical music or critical recording of acoustic instruments then
I think a good case can be made for using expensive mics ......

But clearly never ever any other need ?


Graham

Matt wrote:

Is there anything that really sets the Shure SM57 apart from other
dynamic mics. I have a Shure PG58 which I use to mic my cabinet and
for some vocals. Will the sm57 really sound different?

Yes, the SM57 sounds clearer than a SM58 or PG58.

It is a good, sometimes great microphone for vocals.
Many million+ selling hits have been tracked with it being used for
the lead vocal.

It's sensitive, however, to what pre you're using for bringing out the
best in it. Effective microphone placement is also a factor.

If you don't need your original PG58, sell it and use the $$ towards a
SM57. Shure also sells a foam windscreen for live use.
Use a nylon, or a metal pop screen like the Stedman for recording
vocals.

IMHO the "Made in USA" (older) SM57's that have "Unidyne III" on them
generally
sound better than the newer ones made in Mexico, and some strong pro
AE's who post here also have said. I bought mine off e-bay.

Chris

In article , Pooh Bear
writes:

Garthrr wrote:

If you doing classical music or critical recording of acoustic instruments
then
I think a good case can be made for using expensive mics ......

But clearly never ever any other need ?


Graham

I certainly didnt mean to imply that. I guess my point was that for rock and
pop music you can get away with less expensive mics in some situations because
the accuracy of the mic isnt such an issue as long as one likes what he hears.
You might get the coolest sound in the world through a Radio Shack PZM even
though it might bear no resemblance to the sound of the instrument in the room.

On the other hand critical recording of acoustic instruments clearly benefits
IMO from a high end mic.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

"Chris Del Faro" wrote in message
om
Matt wrote:

Is there anything that really sets the Shure SM57 apart from other
dynamic mics. I have a Shure PG58 which I use to mic my cabinet and
for some vocals. Will the sm57 really sound different?

Yes, the SM57 sounds clearer than a SM58 or PG58.

Yes, but it sounds very colored. Cold, electronic.

It is a good, sometimes great microphone for vocals.
Many million+ selling hits have been tracked with it being used for
the lead vocal.

Just shows that natural sound quality is not always paramount.

It's sensitive, however, to what pre you're using for bringing out the
best in it. Effective microphone placement is also a factor.

Close, so it will have any warmth at all.

If you don't need your original PG58, sell it and use the $$ towards a
SM57. Shure also sells a foam windscreen for live use.

The Shure windscreen snaps on nicely, but isn't cheap. I've also had good
luck with generic foam filters held on by black hair bands.

Use a nylon, or a metal pop screen like the Stedman for recording vocals.

I just pulled the last of our SM57s out of service this week, replaced all
but one of them with CAD 95's that I pulled off of eBay over a period of
months. The most noticeable difference in live use is the absence of
handling noise. Right on its heels is the tone quality improvement,
specifically loss of that characteristic SM57 electronic, cold crisp sound.
Sibilants now have a much finer, more refined quality.

The biggest surprise was the need for an additional foam pop filter, over
and above the internal filter inside the CAD 95. In the process of checking
out the 95s as I received them, I discovered that you can break a CAD95 down
into component parts and reassemble it in the field, and still have an
excellent chance of having a working microphone. Try that with a SM57 (if
you have one that is already broke!)

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Chris Del Faro" wrote in message
. com
Matt wrote:

Is there anything that really sets the Shure SM57 apart from other
dynamic mics. I have a Shure PG58 which I use to mic my cabinet and
for some vocals. Will the sm57 really sound different?

Yes, the SM57 sounds clearer than a SM58 or PG58.

Yes, but it sounds very colored. Cold, electronic.

Try it with a good transformer-input preamp. A lot of that coldness goes
away into a really good preamp. It's still not a natural sound, but it's
a surprisingly good sound.

I wondered why so many folks seem to have the SM57 so much. Then I heard
what the SM57 sounds like into a Mackie. I'd hate that too.

The SM57 is very touchy about loading, unfortunately. Sadly this makes it
unusable in a lot of low budget applications where you'd expect it would
be a great choice. But it can sound good if you can load it right.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

If you want a good mic that has the usability of a 57 but is much nicer, try
an AT ATM63HE. I'd use it anywhere that I would normally slap up a 57, but
it's about the price of a 58, so it's not directly comparable in price and
it kicks a 57s butt. However, that being said, I'll still pull out a 57
when needed without even worrying about it. A 57 by itself isn't all that
great a piece of equipment other than being pretty rugged, but it seems to
fit in mixes when you need something on a guitar amp or even a vocal. In
other words, it has it's uses.

Or step up to a Sennheiser 421 and never worry again.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Matt" wrote in message
om...
Is there anything that really sets the Shure SM57 apart from other
dynamic mics. I have a Shure PG58 which I use to mic my cabinet and
for some vocals. Will the sm57 really sound different?