SM-58 vs. SM-57 vs. small condenser

[ostaz]

I have an SM-58 beta that I use primarily as a live vocal mic. I've noticed
that a lot of people on this forum own a 57 for recording various things
like percussion. I've never liked the 57 very much because I always
percieved it's sound as being very small-ish and "boxy" sounding. Can
someone please explain the appeal of the 57 and why it fits this application
more than a 58? Also, can someone please explain why one would want to use
a 57 (or 58) rather than a small diaphragm condenser like the Rode nt-5 or
other suitable models? I haven't heard a 57 in action for many years and I
just want to know if I'm missing something....I can always pick one up if
they are useful to have around!

Thanks,
Pete

[Scott Dorsey]

ostaz > wrote:
>I have an SM-58 beta that I use primarily as a live vocal mic.

The SM-58 is an SM-57 capsule with a windscreen that changes the response
a lot but makes it harder to pop. The SM-58 beta is an attempt to counteract
the top end droop on the regular SM-58 caused by that windscreen. The SM-58
beta is NOT AT ALL the same thing as the regular SM-58.

>I've noticed
>that a lot of people on this forum own a 57 for recording various things
>like percussion. I've never liked the 57 very much because I always
>percieved it's sound as being very small-ish and "boxy" sounding.

It has a huge presence peak. "Boxy" sound normally has more to do with
the room than anything else... when I think of something that sounds boxy
I think of something with short-term room reflections.

>Can
>someone please explain the appeal of the 57 and why it fits this application
>more than a 58?

Well, the SM-58 has no top end whatsoever. It is completely rolled off
above the presence peak. The SM-57 does not do this, and it does not
sound muffled like the conventional SM-58 does.

>Also, can someone please explain why one would want to use
>a 57 (or 58) rather than a small diaphragm condenser like the Rode nt-5 or
>other suitable models?

Because it sounds very different.

>I haven't heard a 57 in action for many years and I
>just want to know if I'm missing something....I can always pick one up if
>they are useful to have around!

They are probably the most useful microphones to have in the kit for rock
music work, although the huge presence peak can be a problem sometimes.
--scott

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

[Walt]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> ostaz > wrote:

>> Also, can someone please explain why one would want to use
>> a 57 (or 58) rather than a small diaphragm condenser like the Rode nt-5 or
>> other suitable models?
>
> Because it sounds very different.
>
> They are probably the most useful microphones to have in the kit for rock
> music work, although the huge presence peak can be a problem sometimes.

They're also dirt cheap compared to most other "studio quality" mics.

Mostly, though, it's that so many snare drums have been recorded with a
57 that it's the sound people expect. If you want that sound, use a 57.

//Walt

[Scott Fraser]

<<Can someone please explain the appeal of the 57 and why it fits this
application
more than a 58?>>

Not that it's exactly appealing, but a 57 is, to my ears, less awful
sounding than a 58. With the available foam pop screen it is a better
vocal mic than the 58, & also has some application with instruments.

<< Also, can someone please explain why one would want to use a 57
(or 58) rather than a small diaphragm condenser like the Rode nt-5 or
other suitable models? >>

I only use 57's for quick & dirty PA applications, so I can't think of
any instance where I wouldn't prefer a much better condenser mic,
including on snare drum.

Scott Fraser

[Ian Bell]

ostaz wrote:

> I have an SM-58 beta that I use primarily as a live vocal mic. I've
> noticed that a lot of people on this forum own a 57 for recording various
> things
> like percussion. I've never liked the 57 very much because I always
> percieved it's sound as being very small-ish and "boxy" sounding. Can
> someone please explain the appeal of the 57 and why it fits this
> application
> more than a 58? Also, can someone please explain why one would want to
> use a 57 (or 58) rather than a small diaphragm condenser like the Rode
> nt-5 or
> other suitable models? I haven't heard a 57 in action for many years and
> I just want to know if I'm missing something....I can always pick one up
> if they are useful to have around!
>
> Thanks,
> Pete


I don't think you are missing anything. IMHO they 57/58 are crap. I have
never understood why people rate them for snares or guitar cabs unless you
want a particularly dull sound.

Ian

[hank alrich]

Walt > wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > ostaz > wrote:
>
> >> Also, can someone please explain why one would want to use
> >> a 57 (or 58) rather than a small diaphragm condenser like the Rode nt-5 or
> >> other suitable models?
> >
> > Because it sounds very different.
> >
> > They are probably the most useful microphones to have in the kit for rock
> > music work, although the huge presence peak can be a problem sometimes.
>
> They're also dirt cheap compared to most other "studio quality" mics.
>
> Mostly, though, it's that so many snare drums have been recorded with a
> 57 that it's the sound people expect. If you want that sound, use a 57.

Keeping in mind that if you hook an SM57 to most contemporary
inexpensive mic preamps, like Mackie, Behringer, etc., you won't get
"that sound". Hook it to an API, a Great River, any pre with a good
transformer front end, which is what the SM57 was designed to look into,
and there is "that sound". An exception is the FMR RNC, which was
intended from the gitgo to work well with the SM57, in spite of the lack
of an input transformer.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Mark]

On Apr 4, 5:28 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
> Walt > wrote:
> > Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > > ostaz > wrote:
>
> > >> Also, can someone please explain why one would want to use
> > >> a 57 (or 58) rather than a small diaphragm condenser like the Rode nt-5 or
> > >> other suitable models?
>
> > > Because it sounds very different.
>
> > > They are probably the most useful microphones to have in the kit for rock
> > > music work, although the huge presence peak can be a problem sometimes.
>
> > They're also dirt cheap compared to most other "studio quality" mics.
>
> > Mostly, though, it's that so many snare drums have been recorded with a
> > 57 that it's the sound people expect. If you want that sound, use a 57.
>
> Keeping in mind that if you hook an SM57 to most contemporary
> inexpensive mic preamps, like Mackie, Behringer, etc., you won't get
> "that sound". Hook it to an API, a Great River, any pre with a good
> transformer front end, which is what the SM57 was designed to look into,
> and there is "that sound". An exception is the FMR RNC, which was
> intended from the gitgo to work well with the SM57, in spite of the lack
> of an input transformer.
>
> --
> ha
> Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's pretty interesting actually...

You can take a small hand pump and a pin that is used to fill balls
with air and make a steady wideband hissing sound, or use anything
else you can think of to make a steady wideband hissing sound...

Then record that hissing sound through the mics that you have...
(and various preamps if you believe that matters)

Then playback the recording through your favorite DAW and look at the
response via the FFT feature.

You can see right away the difference between an SM58 and a good
condenser mic.

Mark

[Richard Crowley]

"Ian Bell" wrote ...
> I don't think you are missing anything. IMHO they 57/58 are crap. I have
> never understood why people rate them for snares or guitar cabs unless you
> want a particularly dull sound.

They don't even make good door-stops, they keep rolling.
But then I don't do rock music of any type so I guess I've just
never "appreciated" them. I feel no sense of loss for never
having used them.

[hank alrich]

Ian Bell > wrote:

> ostaz wrote:
>
> > I have an SM-58 beta that I use primarily as a live vocal mic. I've
> > noticed that a lot of people on this forum own a 57 for recording various
> > things
> > like percussion. I've never liked the 57 very much because I always
> > percieved it's sound as being very small-ish and "boxy" sounding. Can
> > someone please explain the appeal of the 57 and why it fits this
> > application
> > more than a 58? Also, can someone please explain why one would want to
> > use a 57 (or 58) rather than a small diaphragm condenser like the Rode
> > nt-5 or
> > other suitable models? I haven't heard a 57 in action for many years and
> > I just want to know if I'm missing something....I can always pick one up
> > if they are useful to have around!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Pete
>
>
> I don't think you are missing anything. IMHO they 57/58 are crap. I have
> never understood why people rate them for snares or guitar cabs unless you
> want a particularly dull sound.
>
> Ian

So many fine guitar and drum tracks have been recorded using SM57's that
I am amazed anyone would say such a thing. Every time I must use one and
have it connected to the Great River I am amazed how good it sounds.
When I connect it to a Mackie I am amzed how bad it sounds. I wouldn't
want to have to use it that way. But if I can't get a decent track from
a 57 into a good pre, I am not inclined to blame the microphone.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Scott Dorsey]

Mark > wrote:
>
>You can take a small hand pump and a pin that is used to fill balls
>with air and make a steady wideband hissing sound, or use anything
>else you can think of to make a steady wideband hissing sound...
>
>Then record that hissing sound through the mics that you have...
>(and various preamps if you believe that matters)
>
>Then playback the recording through your favorite DAW and look at the
>response via the FFT feature.
>
>You can see right away the difference between an SM58 and a good
>condenser mic.

Sure. You can see the difference between an SM58 and an SM57. You can
see a huge difference between an SM57 loaded with 2Kohms and one loaded
with 500 ohms.

BUT, what you see is only a small subset of the differences between the
mikes. This test tells you only about on-axis response, nothing about
transient response or what happens off-axis.

And a lot of what is interesting about the SM-57, aside from the presence
peak, is what it does to alter transients.
--scott

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

[ostaz]

> I don't think you are missing anything. IMHO they 57/58 are crap. I have
> never understood why people rate them for snares or guitar cabs unless you
> want a particularly dull sound.
>
> Ian

That's kind of what I thought. I actually like my 58 beta very much for
live vocals on my voice. I'm a bass-baritone range singer and it responds
really well for my range andyway and sound very warm and clear. I probably
would not be inclined to use either one of these mics for an actual
recording application. By the way, I mostly mic bouzouki, acoustic
instruments, and percussion. I don't record electric guitar or drums.

Pete

[Geoff]

ostaz wrote:
>> I don't think you are missing anything. IMHO they 57/58 are crap. I
>> have never understood why people rate them for snares or guitar cabs
>> unless you want a particularly dull sound.
>>
>> Ian
>
> That's kind of what I thought. I actually like my 58 beta very much
> for live vocals on my voice. I'm a bass-baritone range singer and it
> responds really well for my range andyway and sound very warm and
> clear. I probably would not be inclined to use either one of these
> mics for an actual recording application. By the way, I mostly mic
> bouzouki, acoustic instruments, and percussion. I don't record
> electric guitar or drums.

I had a live gig a while ago, and the male vocalist was so pleased that he
had invested in a superior mic - a Beta 58. Problem was his rather bland
voice would cut thru at all - he *needed* some of the nasties from a
different mic. EQ just couldn't get it right either.


geoff

[Steve King]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Ian Bell > wrote:
>
>> ostaz wrote:
>>
>> > I have an SM-58 beta that I use primarily as a live vocal mic. I've
>> > noticed that a lot of people on this forum own a 57 for recording
>> > various
>> > things
>> > like percussion. I've never liked the 57 very much because I always
>> > percieved it's sound as being very small-ish and "boxy" sounding. Can
>> > someone please explain the appeal of the 57 and why it fits this
>> > application
>> > more than a 58? Also, can someone please explain why one would want to
>> > use a 57 (or 58) rather than a small diaphragm condenser like the Rode
>> > nt-5 or
>> > other suitable models? I haven't heard a 57 in action for many years
>> > and
>> > I just want to know if I'm missing something....I can always pick one
>> > up
>> > if they are useful to have around!
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Pete
>>
>>
>> I don't think you are missing anything. IMHO they 57/58 are crap. I have
>> never understood why people rate them for snares or guitar cabs unless
>> you
>> want a particularly dull sound.
>>
>> Ian
>
> So many fine guitar and drum tracks have been recorded using SM57's that
> I am amazed anyone would say such a thing. Every time I must use one and
> have it connected to the Great River I am amazed how good it sounds.
> When I connect it to a Mackie I am amzed how bad it sounds. I wouldn't
> want to have to use it that way. But if I can't get a decent track from
> a 57 into a good pre, I am not inclined to blame the microphone.
>
> --
> ha
> Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

I seem to recall reading about a session done entirely with SM57s that blew
everyone's socks off. Does this ring a bell with anyone? Having used SM57s
and their predecessors the 545 and 546 in hundreds of sessions I can believe
it. They sounded great, really great, through a both early Neve and
Flickenger boards I used to track with.

Steve King

Steve King

[Scott Fraser]

<<IMHO they 57/58 are crap. I have
> never understood why people rate them for snares or guitar cabs unless you
> want a particularly dull sound.>>

I agree they are crap, but they are a flavor of crap a lot of
engineers have used to good effect. I'm not one of them & 95% of the
time I use a condenser on snare. Guitar amps & snares are not an
application which necessarily lend themselves to the most accurate,
transparent approach in miking, & as such the 57 is sometimes a
correct choice to invoke a certain type of color.

Scott Fraser

[Scott Fraser]

> That's kind of what I thought. I actually like my 58 beta very much for
> live vocals on my voice. >>

You should be aware that the beta58 & the SM58 are two completely
different mics. The constituent parts making up the capsule are
different & the resultant sound is very different. The beta58 is
Shure's current concept of what a dynamic vocal mic should sound like,
& they gave it a model number which they felt would make those who are
only familiar with the tried & true SM58 feel comfortable.

Scott Fraser

[Ian Bell]

hank alrich wrote:

> Ian Bell > wrote:
>
>> ostaz wrote:
>>
>> > I have an SM-58 beta that I use primarily as a live vocal mic. I've
>> > noticed that a lot of people on this forum own a 57 for recording
>> > various things
>> > like percussion. I've never liked the 57 very much because I always
>> > percieved it's sound as being very small-ish and "boxy" sounding. Can
>> > someone please explain the appeal of the 57 and why it fits this
>> > application
>> > more than a 58? Also, can someone please explain why one would want to
>> > use a 57 (or 58) rather than a small diaphragm condenser like the Rode
>> > nt-5 or
>> > other suitable models? I haven't heard a 57 in action for many years
>> > and I just want to know if I'm missing something....I can always pick
>> > one up if they are useful to have around!
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Pete
>>
>>
>> I don't think you are missing anything. IMHO they 57/58 are crap. I have
>> never understood why people rate them for snares or guitar cabs unless
>> you want a particularly dull sound.
>>
>> Ian
>
> So many fine guitar and drum tracks have been recorded using SM57's that
> I am amazed anyone would say such a thing. Every time I must use one and
> have it connected to the Great River I am amazed how good it sounds.
> When I connect it to a Mackie I am amzed how bad it sounds. I wouldn't
> want to have to use it that way. But if I can't get a decent track from
> a 57 into a good pre, I am not inclined to blame the microphone.
>

Obviously we have differing experiences. I have been recording for over 40
years in the UK and I have never seen anyone use an SM57 on drums and
rarely on guitar cabs. Maybe it's a US thing. Seems a bit of an urban myth
to me.

Ian

[Ian Bell]

hank alrich wrote:

>
> Keeping in mind that if you hook an SM57 to most contemporary
> inexpensive mic preamps, like Mackie, Behringer, etc., you won't get
> "that sound". Hook it to an API, a Great River, any pre with a good
> transformer front end, which is what the SM57 was designed to look into,
> and there is "that sound".

Hi Hank, where did you get this info? Does Shure say the 57 is 'designed to
look into a transformer'?

> An exception is the FMR RNC, which was
> intended from the gitgo to work well with the SM57, in spite of the lack
> of an input transformer.
>

Ditto, does FMR say the RNC was 'designed for the SM57'?

I'd love to see the references for these.

Ian

[david correia]

In article >,
(hank alrich) wrote:

> > I don't think you are missing anything. IMHO they 57/58 are crap. I have
> > never understood why people rate them for snares or guitar cabs unless you
> > want a particularly dull sound.
> >
> > Ian
>
> So many fine guitar and drum tracks have been recorded using SM57's that
> I am amazed anyone would say such a thing. Every time I must use one and
> have it connected to the Great River I am amazed how good it sounds.
> When I connect it to a Mackie I am amzed how bad it sounds. I wouldn't
> want to have to use it that way. But if I can't get a decent track from
> a 57 into a good pre, I am not inclined to blame the microphone.
>
> --
> ha
> Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam




I love 57's. And apple pie.


A couple years ago I did a drum recording seminar at my place for about
20 folks along with Phil Greene (the famous Fletcher's teacher back in
the day). After spending hours with high priced mics and showing what we
wanted to show the class - namely an incredible, wetyourpants drum sound
- on a whim, at the end of the class we replaced all the mics with 57's.

As the owner of all those expensive mics, I was *very* surprised at how
very, very good it sounded. (Of course the drummer we were using is on
David Bowie & Dave Navarro albums.) What we got was waaaaay better than
I expected.





David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Anahata]

hank alrich wrote:
> "that sound". Hook it to an API, a Great River, any pre with a good
> transformer front end, which is what the SM57 was designed to look into,
> and there is "that sound". An exception is the FMR RNC, which was
> intended from the gitgo to work well with the SM57, in spite of the lack
> of an input transformer.

I assume you mean the RNP.
Does anyone know exactly what it was that Mark did to make the RNP work
well with the 57? It's input impedance isn't particularly low, which
might otherwise have accounted for it.

Anahata

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <461497cd.0@entanet>, Ian Bell > wrote:
>hank alrich wrote:
>> Keeping in mind that if you hook an SM57 to most contemporary
>> inexpensive mic preamps, like Mackie, Behringer, etc., you won't get
>> "that sound". Hook it to an API, a Great River, any pre with a good
>> transformer front end, which is what the SM57 was designed to look into,
>> and there is "that sound".
>
>Hi Hank, where did you get this info? Does Shure say the 57 is 'designed to
>look into a transformer'?

Back when the SM-57 was designed, EVERYTHING was looking into a transformer.

Paul Stamler has a fine article in Recording, detailing the change in
response when you add a bridging resistor across it.

>> An exception is the FMR RNC, which was
>> intended from the gitgo to work well with the SM57, in spite of the lack
>> of an input transformer.
>
>Ditto, does FMR say the RNC was 'designed for the SM57'?
>
>I'd love to see the references for these.

Measure the response open-circuit, then measure it with a 600 ohm load.
Then listen to some vocals recorded both ways. The difference is
substantial, because the electrical load provides substantial mechanical
damping on the diaphragm and when you change the load, you change the
response of the mike.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[drichard]

Hi Ian,

I believe you when you say that you have never seen anyone use an SM57
on drums. But it's not an urban myth. The SM57 has been a staple on
drums and guitar cabs in US studios for as long as I've been
recording, which is something like 35 years.

In fairness, it's often smaller and midsize studios that gravitate to
the SM57, partly because of cost. But there are many hit records that
were made with them.

Dean

On Apr 5, 1:31 am, Ian Bell > wrote:
> hank alrich wrote:
> > Ian Bell > wrote:
>
> >> ostaz wrote:
>
> >> > I have an SM-58 beta that I use primarily as a live vocal mic. I've
> >> > noticed that a lot of people on this forum own a 57 for recording
> >> > various things
> >> > like percussion. I've never liked the 57 very much because I always
> >> > percieved it's sound as being very small-ish and "boxy" sounding. Can
> >> > someone please explain the appeal of the 57 and why it fits this
> >> > application
> >> > more than a 58? Also, can someone please explain why one would want to
> >> > use a 57 (or 58) rather than a small diaphragm condenser like the Rode
> >> > nt-5 or
> >> > other suitable models? I haven't heard a 57 in action for many years
> >> > and I just want to know if I'm missing something....I can always pick
> >> > one up if they are useful to have around!
>
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Pete
>
> >> I don't think you are missing anything. IMHO they 57/58 are crap. I have
> >> never understood why people rate them for snares or guitar cabs unless
> >> you want a particularly dull sound.
>
> >> Ian
>
> > So many fine guitar and drum tracks have been recorded using SM57's that
> > I am amazed anyone would say such a thing. Every time I must use one and
> > have it connected to the Great River I am amazed how good it sounds.
> > When I connect it to a Mackie I am amzed how bad it sounds. I wouldn't
> > want to have to use it that way. But if I can't get a decent track from
> > a 57 into a good pre, I am not inclined to blame the microphone.
>
> Obviously we have differing experiences. I have been recording for over 40
> years in the UK and I have never seen anyone use an SM57 on drums and
> rarely on guitar cabs. Maybe it's a US thing. Seems a bit of an urban myth
> to me.
>
> Ian- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
david correia > wrote:

> In article >,
> (hank alrich) wrote:
>
> > > I don't think you are missing anything. IMHO they 57/58 are crap. I have
> > > never understood why people rate them for snares or guitar cabs unless you
> > > want a particularly dull sound.
> > >
> > > Ian
> >
> > So many fine guitar and drum tracks have been recorded using SM57's that
> > I am amazed anyone would say such a thing. Every time I must use one and
> > have it connected to the Great River I am amazed how good it sounds.
> > When I connect it to a Mackie I am amzed how bad it sounds. I wouldn't
> > want to have to use it that way. But if I can't get a decent track from
> > a 57 into a good pre, I am not inclined to blame the microphone.
> >
> > --
> > ha
> > Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam
>
>
>
>
> I love 57's. And apple pie.
>
>
> A couple years ago I did a drum recording seminar at my place for about
> 20 folks along with Phil Greene (the famous Fletcher's teacher back in
> the day). After spending hours with high priced mics and showing what we
> wanted to show the class - namely an incredible, wetyourpants drum sound
> - on a whim, at the end of the class we replaced all the mics with 57's.
>
> As the owner of all those expensive mics, I was *very* surprised at how
> very, very good it sounded. (Of course the drummer we were using is on
> David Bowie & Dave Navarro albums.) What we got was waaaaay better than
> I expected.
>
> David Correia
> www.Celebrationsound.com

One of the best student piano recordings I've heard was done with 2
SM-57s. The student was an excellent pianist and found just the right
placement to get an impressively good sound. (Granted I can get a good
sound much more quickly with a pair of 4006s.)

-Jay

--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x ---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

[Ian Bell]

drichard wrote:

> Hi Ian,
>
> I believe you when you say that you have never seen anyone use an SM57
> on drums. But it's not an urban myth. The SM57 has been a staple on
> drums and guitar cabs in US studios for as long as I've been
> recording, which is something like 35 years.
>

I am sure you are right. Definitely seems a US rather than European thing to
me. With the advent of project studios and the internet it is not
surprising its usage has spread.

I still think it is a crap mic.

Ian

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <46151f9a.0@entanet>, Ian Bell > wrote:
>drichard wrote:
>>
>> I believe you when you say that you have never seen anyone use an SM57
>> on drums. But it's not an urban myth. The SM57 has been a staple on
>> drums and guitar cabs in US studios for as long as I've been
>> recording, which is something like 35 years.
>
>I am sure you are right. Definitely seems a US rather than European thing to
>me. With the advent of project studios and the internet it is not
>surprising its usage has spread.

Actually with the advent of project studios, you are seeing more and more
folks abandoning the SM-57 for cheap condensers that are marketed to those
folks.

>I still think it is a crap mic.

You should try it with a low-Z input preamp. It is what it is, and it
has a massive presence peak that can be an irritation, but it's still
a useful tool everybody ought to have in the kit.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Fraser]

> Obviously we have differing experiences. I have been recording for over 40
> years in the UK and I have never seen anyone use an SM57 on drums and
> rarely on guitar cabs. Maybe it's a US thing. Seems a bit of an urban myth
> to me.
>
> Ian>>

Ian, it's true, not myth. I've been recording for about 35 years in
the US & I can assure you, SM57's are as common as dirt on snare &
guitar amps in American recording studios. Not in my studio, but the
57 really is the standard here for those applications.

Scott Fraser

[hank alrich]

Ian Bell > wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
>
> >
> > Keeping in mind that if you hook an SM57 to most contemporary
> > inexpensive mic preamps, like Mackie, Behringer, etc., you won't get
> > "that sound". Hook it to an API, a Great River, any pre with a good
> > transformer front end, which is what the SM57 was designed to look into,
> > and there is "that sound".
>
> Hi Hank, where did you get this info? Does Shure say the 57 is 'designed to
> look into a transformer'?

Name one balanced input microphone preamplifier from the era in which
the SM57 was designed that does not have an input transformer.

> > An exception is the FMR RNC, which was
> > intended from the gitgo to work well with the SM57, in spite of the lack
> > of an input transformer.
> >
>
> Ditto, does FMR say the RNC was 'designed for the SM57'?

I happen to know Mark McQuilken personally and spent a few hours with
him in the window between the prototype of the first RNP, which was a
single channel unit with full-range metering, very high-end specs, a
price for one channel equal to the final production unit's price for two
channels, and the pre-manufacturing prototype of the final RNP. Mark led
me step by step through the units, discussing design goals and tradeoffs
made. The information comes firectly from his mouth.

> I'd love to see the references for these.

He stated explicitly that one of his goals for the RNP was that it work
very well with mics designed in a bygone era where transformers balanced
mic pre inputs, the SM57 being the most ubiquitious of such mics. He did
this because SM57's are cheap and reliable and can sound good if
appropriately matched to a preamp, and the whole philosophy of FMR is to
deliver kit that bats above its price-point league to enable less-monied
people to have access to better audio recording tools.

You can ask him about this yourself.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[hank alrich]

Anahata wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > "that sound". Hook it to an API, a Great River, any pre with a good
> > transformer front end, which is what the SM57 was designed to look into,
> > and there is "that sound". An exception is the FMR RNC, which was
> > intended from the gitgo to work well with the SM57, in spite of the lack
> > of an input transformer.
>
> I assume you mean the RNP.

Opps, you're quite right!

> Does anyone know exactly what it was that Mark did to make the RNP work
> well with the 57? It's input impedance isn't particularly low, which
> might otherwise have accounted for it.

Part of it was including some inductance at the input, but we're moving
out of my realm of so-called expertise here. Time to ask Mr. Dorsey, Mr.
Rivers, some other well-clued person, or call mark McQuilken.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[hank alrich]

Ian Bell > wrote:

> drichard wrote:
>
> > Hi Ian,
> >
> > I believe you when you say that you have never seen anyone use an SM57
> > on drums. But it's not an urban myth. The SM57 has been a staple on
> > drums and guitar cabs in US studios for as long as I've been
> > recording, which is something like 35 years.
> >
>
> I am sure you are right. Definitely seems a US rather than European thing to
> me. With the advent of project studios and the internet it is not
> surprising its usage has spread.

SM57's and 58's have been in widespread use in the US for a long time. I
think you have this backwards. Projectistos and the 'net have generated
the widespread use of cheap condensors.

> I still think it is a crap mic.

Whatever - the mic has been is use a _lot_ in the US for decades, and
has been employed to create sounds on product selling in the zillions,
total. Like I said, if I have a good pre an an SM57 and can't get a
usable track, my problem is me, not the mic. I may well prefer a
different mic if given a choice. I own only one SM57, and I bought it in
like-new condition from a local pawn shop for $35.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Mike]

On 2007-04-05, hank alrich > wrote:
> Ian Bell > wrote:
>
>> drichard wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Ian,
>> >
>> > I believe you when you say that you have never seen anyone use an SM57
>> > on drums. But it's not an urban myth. The SM57 has been a staple on
>> > drums and guitar cabs in US studios for as long as I've been
>> > recording, which is something like 35 years.
>> >
>>
>> I am sure you are right. Definitely seems a US rather than European thing to
>> me. With the advent of project studios and the internet it is not
>> surprising its usage has spread.
>
> SM57's and 58's have been in widespread use in the US for a long time. I
> think you have this backwards. Projectistos and the 'net have generated
> the widespread use of cheap condensors.
>
>> I still think it is a crap mic.
>
> Whatever - the mic has been is use a _lot_ in the US for decades, and
> has been employed to create sounds on product selling in the zillions,
> total. Like I said, if I have a good pre an an SM57 and can't get a
> usable track, my problem is me, not the mic. I may well prefer a
> different mic if given a choice. I own only one SM57, and I bought it in
> like-new condition from a local pawn shop for $35.

I like what I have heard about the RNP / SM57 combo so much that I might
think about buying one. I have more money than brains, I suppose, but it
sounds like a way to 1) get my first non-schlock preamp, and
2) get a pretty nice mike setup for some things. In addition, I have
been dying to try an SM57 on vocals.

If I do this, how do I use the RNP in combo with my cheesy mixer?
Pipe it into the insert on a channel, while having nothing plugged
into that channel's input?

--
Mike

Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick two and we'll talk. -- unknown

[hank alrich]

Mike wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > Ian Bell wrote:
> >
> >> drichard wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Ian,
> >> >
> >> > I believe you when you say that you have never seen anyone use an SM57
> >> > on drums. But it's not an urban myth. The SM57 has been a staple on
> >> > drums and guitar cabs in US studios for as long as I've been
> >> > recording, which is something like 35 years.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I am sure you are right. Definitely seems a US rather than European
> >> thing to me. With the advent of project studios and the internet it is
> >> not surprising its usage has spread.
> >
> > SM57's and 58's have been in widespread use in the US for a long time. I
> > think you have this backwards. Projectistos and the 'net have generated
> > the widespread use of cheap condensors.
> >
> >> I still think it is a crap mic.
> >
> > Whatever - the mic has been is use a _lot_ in the US for decades, and
> > has been employed to create sounds on product selling in the zillions,
> > total. Like I said, if I have a good pre an an SM57 and can't get a
> > usable track, my problem is me, not the mic. I may well prefer a
> > different mic if given a choice. I own only one SM57, and I bought it in
> > like-new condition from a local pawn shop for $35.
>
> I like what I have heard about the RNP / SM57 combo so much that I might
> think about buying one. I have more money than brains, I suppose, but it
> sounds like a way to 1) get my first non-schlock preamp, and
> 2) get a pretty nice mike setup for some things. In addition, I have
> been dying to try an SM57 on vocals.
>
> If I do this, how do I use the RNP in combo with my cheesy mixer?
> Pipe it into the insert on a channel, while having nothing plugged
> into that channel's input?

What's the rest of your recording chain? Best bet is to hook the output
of the RNP to the input of your storage system, be it computer audio
card, standalone workstation, tape deck, whatever.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike > wrote:
>I like what I have heard about the RNP / SM57 combo so much that I might
>think about buying one. I have more money than brains, I suppose, but it
>sounds like a way to 1) get my first non-schlock preamp, and
>2) get a pretty nice mike setup for some things. In addition, I have
>been dying to try an SM57 on vocals.

Before you do this, try making a cable or a barrel connector with a 620 ohm
shunt resistor in it. Try using the SM57 on your existing preamp with the
shunt across it, and see if that doesn't make you happy. A resistor costs
a lot less than an RNP.

>If I do this, how do I use the RNP in combo with my cheesy mixer?
>Pipe it into the insert on a channel, while having nothing plugged
>into that channel's input?

You could do that, though you're still going through the console EQ
you're bypassing the preamp. The RNP gain becomes your console trim.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Agent 86]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:27:56 +0100, Anahata wrote:

>
> I assume you mean the RNP.s input impedance isn't particularly low, which might
> otherwise have accounted for it.

One might wonder if he sold his soul to the devil. He certainly
accomplished what nobody else has at anywhere near his price point.

[hank alrich]

Agent 86 wrote:

> Anahata wrote:

> > I assume you mean the RNP.s input impedance isn't particularly low,
> > which might otherwise have accounted for it.

> One might wonder if he sold his soul to the devil.

He did not.

> He certainly
> accomplished what nobody else has at anywhere near his price point.

He did.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Doc]

On Apr 4, 6:05 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:

> I am amazed anyone would say such a thing. Every time I must use one and
> have it connected to the Great River I am amazed how good it sounds.
> When I connect it to a Mackie I am amzed how bad it sounds.


This seems like an important concept. Can you explain in terms
understandable to someone not versed in electronics why there would be
such a big difference between 2 pre-amps for a dynamic mic? If the
signal from the mic goes through the preamp and creates sound at the
other end, what would cause it to sound bad from one?

[hank alrich]

Doc wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
>
> > I am amazed anyone would say such a thing. Every time I must use one and
> > have it connected to the Great River I am amazed how good it sounds.
> > When I connect it to a Mackie I am amzed how bad it sounds.
>
>
> This seems like an important concept. Can you explain in terms
> understandable to someone not versed in electronics why there would be
> such a big difference between 2 pre-amps for a dynamic mic? If the
> signal from the mic goes through the preamp and creates sound at the
> other end, what would cause it to sound bad from one?

This has been discussed so many times in this forum that you can find
plenty of reading via Google' Advanced Group Search:

http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&


--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Mike]

On 2007-04-05, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> Mike > wrote:
>>I like what I have heard about the RNP / SM57 combo so much that I might
>>think about buying one. I have more money than brains, I suppose, but it
>>sounds like a way to 1) get my first non-schlock preamp, and
>>2) get a pretty nice mike setup for some things. In addition, I have
>>been dying to try an SM57 on vocals.
>
> Before you do this, try making a cable or a barrel connector with a 620 ohm
> shunt resistor in it. Try using the SM57 on your existing preamp with the
> shunt across it, and see if that doesn't make you happy. A resistor costs
> a lot less than an RNP.

Interesting. Yes, I can probably get a few resistors and connectors
for $475. I even know how to solder. 8-)

>
>>If I do this, how do I use the RNP in combo with my cheesy mixer?
>>Pipe it into the insert on a channel, while having nothing plugged
>>into that channel's input?
>
> You could do that, though you're still going through the console EQ
> you're bypassing the preamp. The RNP gain becomes your console trim.

Thanks for verifying. I might actually be starting to learn
something...thanks to y'all and your expertise.

--
Mike

Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing.
-- Wernher Von Braun

[Ian Bell]

hank alrich wrote:

> Ian Bell > wrote:
>
>> hank alrich wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Keeping in mind that if you hook an SM57 to most contemporary
>> > inexpensive mic preamps, like Mackie, Behringer, etc., you won't get
>> > "that sound". Hook it to an API, a Great River, any pre with a good
>> > transformer front end, which is what the SM57 was designed to look
>> > into, and there is "that sound".
>>
>> Hi Hank, where did you get this info? Does Shure say the 57 is 'designed
>> to look into a transformer'?
>
> Name one balanced input microphone preamplifier from the era in which
> the SM57 was designed that does not have an input transformer.
>

I am not sure exactly when the 57 was designed but it was long enough ago I
expect all *balanced* inputs were transformers. I am happy to accept that
the 57 was designed when transformer inputs were the norm in *pro* gear but
that is not the same as designed for a transformer input (as opposed to any
other sort) nor does it mean it is bound to work 'better' looking into a
transformer rather than anything else.

That said, the 57 is primarily a gigging vocal mic and the original version
most likely had a built in transformer to give hi Z output designed to run
unbalanced straight into a valve PA or guitar amp. I don't know its history
but I suspect the 600 ohm version came out later once transistor PAs became
common with lo Z unbalanced inputs, So on balance I think the 57 was *not*
designed to work into a transformer.

>> > An exception is the FMR RNC, which was
>> > intended from the gitgo to work well with the SM57, in spite of the
>> > lack of an input transformer.
>> >
>>
>> Ditto, does FMR say the RNC was 'designed for the SM57'?
>
> I happen to know Mark McQuilken personally and spent a few hours with
> him in the window between the prototype of the first RNP, which was a
> single channel unit with full-range metering, very high-end specs, a
> price for one channel equal to the final production unit's price for two
> channels, and the pre-manufacturing prototype of the final RNP. Mark led
> me step by step through the units, discussing design goals and tradeoffs
> made. The information comes firectly from his mouth.
>
>> I'd love to see the references for these.
>
> He stated explicitly that one of his goals for the RNP was that it work
> very well with mics designed in a bygone era where transformers balanced
> mic pre inputs, the SM57 being the most ubiquitious of such mics. He did
> this because SM57's are cheap and reliable and can sound good if
> appropriately matched to a preamp, and the whole philosophy of FMR is to
> deliver kit that bats above its price-point league to enable less-monied
> people to have access to better audio recording tools.
>
> You can ask him about this yourself.
>

I am happy to take your word for that Hank.

Cheers

Ian

[Ian Bell]

hank alrich wrote:

> Ian Bell > wrote:
>
>> drichard wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Ian,
>> >
>> > I believe you when you say that you have never seen anyone use an SM57
>> > on drums. But it's not an urban myth. The SM57 has been a staple on
>> > drums and guitar cabs in US studios for as long as I've been
>> > recording, which is something like 35 years.
>> >
>>
>> I am sure you are right. Definitely seems a US rather than European thing
>> to me. With the advent of project studios and the internet it is not
>> surprising its usage has spread.
>
> SM57's and 58's have been in widespread use in the US for a long time. I
> think you have this backwards. Projectistos and the 'net have generated
> the widespread use of cheap condensors.
>

No, I think that has happened as well. It may still be just a US thing. How
many Europeans on this list think the 57 is a great mic?

>> I still think it is a crap mic.
>
> Whatever - the mic has been is use a _lot_ in the US for decades, and
> has been employed to create sounds on product selling in the zillions,
> total.

Can you give me a couple of verifiable references for this? Not that I don't
believe you more that I would like to know just who uses this technique.

> Like I said, if I have a good pre an an SM57 and can't get a
> usable track, my problem is me, not the mic.

What sound sources do you use it for?

> I may well prefer a
> different mic if given a choice. I own only one SM57, and I bought it in
> like-new condition from a local pawn shop for $35.
>

Good for you. I had a 57 for 6 months once. Never could get a decent sound
from it whereas my experience with my AKG D190 mics is the same as yours
with a 57.

Ian

[Ian Bell]

Scott Fraser wrote:

>> Obviously we have differing experiences. I have been recording for over
>> 40 years in the UK and I have never seen anyone use an SM57 on drums and
>> rarely on guitar cabs. Maybe it's a US thing. Seems a bit of an urban
>> myth to me.
>>
>> Ian>>
>
> Ian, it's true, not myth. I've been recording for about 35 years in
> the US & I can assure you, SM57's are as common as dirt on snare &
> guitar amps in American recording studios. Not in my studio, but the
> 57 really is the standard here for those applications.
>
> Scott Fraser

I am sure you are right Scott. Seems more and more like a US specific
thing - Shure is after all a US brand. Here in the UK the 57/58 are seen
principally as gigging mics not recording mics. If anything I would say 58s
are more common over here for that application.

Ian

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Ian Bell" > wrote in message...

> That said, the 57 is primarily a gigging vocal mic


Oh... kick me.... ooooooooo.... I simply 'hate' when some schmuck asks
for an SM-57 to sing into.... owwwwww... pinch me.. agrhhh.... wake me
up from a really b-b-b-bad dream... please.... ohhhhhh...... sniff.... choke...


;-)


--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Ian Bell" > wrote in message

> No, I think that has happened as well. It may still be just a US thing. How
> many Europeans on this list think the 57 is a great mic?

If I wear a suit jacket with long pointed lapels, can I be a European too? :-)

A 57 is just a utility mic... rugged & durable... from hammering nails
to capturing a pristine Orange amp tone; from drums to dobro...
it just seems to work well. (I won't say the highland pipes).

Everybody needs 57's in the kit.... Are you being served?


DM

[Scott Fraser]

> it just seems to work well. (I won't say the highland pipes).>>

Of course no. We use them big ass Neumanns on the pipes.

> Everybody needs 57's in the kit.... Are you being served?>>

Sure. I use my 57's for talkback mics so I can communicate with
players who are plugged in direct in the tracking rooms. They're good
for that.

Scott Fraser

[Scott Fraser]

<< Here in the UK the 57/58 are seen principally as gigging mics not
recording mics.>>

That's true in the US, too, although the 57 has become the standard
snare mic for rock recording.
I don't think I've ever seen a 58 in a major studio, though. Other
than in bars & rock clubs, their day is pretty well past & more
contemporary designs are predominating in the performing arts centers.

Scott Fraser

[Jos Geluk]

Ian Bell schreef:
> hank alrich wrote:
>> Ian Bell > wrote:
>>> drichard wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe you when you say that you have never seen anyone use an SM57
>>>> on drums. But it's not an urban myth. The SM57 has been a staple on
>>>> drums and guitar cabs in US studios for as long as I've been
>>>> recording, which is something like 35 years.
>>>>
>>> I am sure you are right. Definitely seems a US rather than European thing
>>> to me. With the advent of project studios and the internet it is not
>>> surprising its usage has spread.
>> SM57's and 58's have been in widespread use in the US for a long time. I
>> think you have this backwards. Projectistos and the 'net have generated
>> the widespread use of cheap condensors.
>>
> No, I think that has happened as well. It may still be just a US thing. How
> many Europeans on this list think the 57 is a great mic?

Wasn't too impressed until I used it with the RNP. Strictly for guitar
amps though.

Jos (European)

--
Ardis Park Music
www.ardispark.nl

[Ian Bell]

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

>
> "Ian Bell" > wrote in message
>
>> No, I think that has happened as well. It may still be just a US thing.
>> How many Europeans on this list think the 57 is a great mic?
>
> If I wear a suit jacket with long pointed lapels, can I be a European too?
> :-)
>
> A 57 is just a utility mic... rugged & durable... from hammering nails
> to capturing a pristine Orange amp tone; from drums to dobro...
> it just seems to work well. (I won't say the highland pipes).
>
> Everybody needs 57's in the kit.... Are you being served?
>
>


That's just what I do not understand. I used to have one and every time I
used it the sound was crap. Put a D190 on the same source and it was
transformed. Gave the 57 away in the end.

Ian

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 6, 3:00 am, Ian Bell > wrote:

> > Whatever - the mic has been is use a _lot_ in the US for decades, and
> > has been employed to create sounds on product selling in the zillions,
> > total.
>
> Can you give me a couple of verifiable references for this? Not that I don't
> believe you more that I would like to know just who uses this technique.

It's a little to find references to the use of SM57s on sessions with
today's vast selection of microphones that has appeared within the
last 5 years or so. But if you were to look through Mix magazines from
5 to 15 years ago, you'd find that just about every article about a
session that mentions the mic selection has an SM57 on the snare drum
or instrument amplifier (including a Leslie). Today, with more choices
available to the engineer, you're as likely to find other mics, often
from the Sennheiser Evolution series that didn't exist in "the day."

[Scott Dorsey]

Doc wrote:
>
> This seems like an important concept. Can you explain in terms
> understandable to someone not versed in electronics why there would be
> such a big difference between 2 pre-amps for a dynamic mic? If the
> signal from the mic goes through the preamp and creates sound at the
> other end, what would cause it to sound bad from one?

I did this two days ago in this very thread, or at least I explained why
load impedance was such a big deal.
--scott


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

[hank alrich]

Ian Bell > wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
>
> > Ian Bell > wrote:
> >
> >> hank alrich wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Keeping in mind that if you hook an SM57 to most contemporary
> >> > inexpensive mic preamps, like Mackie, Behringer, etc., you won't get
> >> > "that sound". Hook it to an API, a Great River, any pre with a good
> >> > transformer front end, which is what the SM57 was designed to look
> >> > into, and there is "that sound".
> >>
> >> Hi Hank, where did you get this info? Does Shure say the 57 is 'designed
> >> to look into a transformer'?
> >
> > Name one balanced input microphone preamplifier from the era in which
> > the SM57 was designed that does not have an input transformer.
> >
>
> I am not sure exactly when the 57 was designed but it was long enough ago I
> expect all *balanced* inputs were transformers. I am happy to accept that
> the 57 was designed when transformer inputs were the norm in *pro* gear but
> that is not the same as designed for a transformer input (as opposed to any
> other sort) nor does it mean it is bound to work 'better' looking into a
> transformer rather than anything else.

All one has to do is _try_ this and find out for oneself. Hook an SM57
to a good Neve module and check it out.

> That said, the 57 is primarily a gigging vocal mic and the original version
> most likely had a built in transformer to give hi Z output designed to run
> unbalanced straight into a valve PA or guitar amp. I don't know its history
> but I suspect the 600 ohm version came out later once transistor PAs became
> common with lo Z unbalanced inputs, So on balance I think the 57 was *not*
> designed to work into a transformer.

It was inteded as an instrument mic, the SM58 with pop filter being
intended for vox.

From http://tinyurl.com/ypk67p


"SM57 Instrument Microphone
"Multi-purpose Shure microphone with contoured frequency response for
"clean sound reproduction of amplified or acoustic instruments.
"Cardioid, Dynamic."


"SM58 Vocal Microphone
"Legendary Shure SM58® vocal microphone, tuned to accentuate the warmth
"and clarity of lead and back-up vocals. Consistently the first choice
"of performers everywhere. Cardioid, Dynamic."

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[philicorda[_2_]]

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 08:05:02 +0100, Ian Bell wrote:

> Scott Fraser wrote:
>
>>> Obviously we have differing experiences. I have been recording for over
>>> 40 years in the UK and I have never seen anyone use an SM57 on drums and
>>> rarely on guitar cabs. Maybe it's a US thing. Seems a bit of an urban
>>> myth to me.
>>>
>>> Ian>>
>>
>> Ian, it's true, not myth. I've been recording for about 35 years in
>> the US & I can assure you, SM57's are as common as dirt on snare &
>> guitar amps in American recording studios. Not in my studio, but the
>> 57 really is the standard here for those applications.
>>
>> Scott Fraser
>
> I am sure you are right Scott. Seems more and more like a US specific
> thing - Shure is after all a US brand. Here in the UK the 57/58 are seen
> principally as gigging mics not recording mics. If anything I would say 58s
> are more common over here for that application.

I see a lot of use of SM57 here in Wales.
Still the first choice for guitar amps + snare drum at most studios.

I think it depends a lot on the studio and the engineer. The more
established places (Rockfield, Loco (RIP), Stir in Cardiff etc) definitely
use them. The beeb seem to like them at Maida vale too. (Either 57 or 4038
on guitar at sessions I've done there.)

I don't see 58s used for recording at all. Funny how people's experiences
differ.


>
> Ian

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Ian Bell" > wrote in message news:46161f96.0@entanet...
> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>
> >
> > "Ian Bell" > wrote in message
> >
> >> No, I think that has happened as well. It may still be just a US thing.
> >> How many Europeans on this list think the 57 is a great mic?
> >
> > If I wear a suit jacket with long pointed lapels, can I be a European too?
> > :-)
> >
> > A 57 is just a utility mic... rugged & durable... from hammering nails
> > to capturing a pristine Orange amp tone; from drums to dobro...
> > it just seems to work well. (I won't say the highland pipes).
> >
> > Everybody needs 57's in the kit.... Are you being served?
> >
> >
>
>
> That's just what I do not understand. I used to have one and every time I
> used it the sound was crap. Put a D190 on the same source and it was
> transformed. Gave the 57 away in the end.
>
> Ian

Hmmm... I dearly love all of the older AKG dynamic mic series... I have
multiples of all of them. However, the D-190e doesn't have anywhere near
the frequency response -on either end- of an SM-57, it just looks cooler.
I wonder what was rolled off by the 190 that made you like it better than
a 57.

[Ian Bell]

philicorda wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 08:05:02 +0100, Ian Bell wrote:
>
>> Scott Fraser wrote:
>>
>>>> Obviously we have differing experiences. I have been recording for over
>>>> 40 years in the UK and I have never seen anyone use an SM57 on drums
>>>> and
>>>> rarely on guitar cabs. Maybe it's a US thing. Seems a bit of an urban
>>>> myth to me.
>>>>
>>>> Ian>>
>>>
>>> Ian, it's true, not myth. I've been recording for about 35 years in
>>> the US & I can assure you, SM57's are as common as dirt on snare &
>>> guitar amps in American recording studios. Not in my studio, but the
>>> 57 really is the standard here for those applications.
>>>
>>> Scott Fraser
>>
>> I am sure you are right Scott. Seems more and more like a US specific
>> thing - Shure is after all a US brand. Here in the UK the 57/58 are seen
>> principally as gigging mics not recording mics. If anything I would say
>> 58s are more common over here for that application.
>
> I see a lot of use of SM57 here in Wales.
> Still the first choice for guitar amps + snare drum at most studios.
>

Interesting, especially as Wales is exceptionally well endowed in the
musical department relative to its size (that's a compliment).

> I think it depends a lot on the studio and the engineer. The more
> established places (Rockfield,

Rockfield lists both the 57 and 58 in its gear list. They have all the
classic condensers too so I guess its down to engineer/producer
preferences.

> Loco (RIP),


> Stir in Cardiff etc)

Stir lists 4xSM57 and a 58 on their gear list but they also list quote
Vintage Reslo Ribbon mics ( As used by The Beatles ) unquote - somewhat
misleading IMHO.

> definitely
> use them. The beeb seem to like them at Maida vale too. (Either 57 or 4038
> on guitar at sessions I've done there.)
>
> I don't see 58s used for recording at all. Funny how people's experiences
> differ.
>

I agree. Back in the 60s & early 70s when I was reet poor, condensers were
well out of reach so I used ribbons on snare/overheads. For everything else
I used AKG D190 dynamics. Last ones I bought cost me £25 each in about
1973. Still going strong but I would never even think of using one on
snare - I use condensers now.

Ian

[Ian Bell]

hank alrich wrote:

>
> All one has to do is _try_ this and find out for oneself. Hook an SM57
> to a good Neve module and check it out.
>

Been there done that Hank. I designed consoles at Neve in the 70s and I
still have several working modules from those days. I had a 57 for a few
months many moons ago and I would be surprised if I did not try it on a
Neve module (it's a long time ago so I can't be certain). I don't recall
being at all impressed by the 57.


>
> It was inteded as an instrument mic, the SM58 with pop filter being
> intended for vox.
>

You are quite right Hank. My mistake and apologies.

Ian

[Ian Bell]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> On Apr 6, 3:00 am, Ian Bell > wrote:
>
>> > Whatever - the mic has been is use a _lot_ in the US for decades, and
>> > has been employed to create sounds on product selling in the zillions,
>> > total.
>>
>> Can you give me a couple of verifiable references for this? Not that I
>> don't believe you more that I would like to know just who uses this
>> technique.
>
> It's a little to find references to the use of SM57s on sessions with
> today's vast selection of microphones that has appeared within the
> last 5 years or so. But if you were to look through Mix magazines from
> 5 to 15 years ago, you'd find that just about every article about a
> session that mentions the mic selection has an SM57 on the snare drum
> or instrument amplifier (including a Leslie). Today, with more choices
> available to the engineer, you're as likely to find other mics, often
> from the Sennheiser Evolution series that didn't exist in "the day."

I never read Mix magazine here in the UK but I'll try to see if I can find
back issues on line. I would just like to know of a couple of zillion
seller tracks that definitely used 57 on snare so I can listen and judge
for myself.

Ian

[Ian Bell]

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

>
> "Ian Bell" > wrote in message

>>
>> That's just what I do not understand. I used to have one and every time I
>> used it the sound was crap. Put a D190 on the same source and it was
>> transformed. Gave the 57 away in the end.
>>
>> Ian
>
> Hmmm... I dearly love all of the older AKG dynamic mic series... I have
> multiples of all of them. However, the D-190e doesn't have anywhere near
> the frequency response -on either end- of an SM-57, it just looks cooler.
> I wonder what was rolled off by the 190 that made you like it better than
> a 57.

AFAIK the D190E response is at least as good as the 57. In point of fact at
the top end there is little to choose between them. The D190 is 10dB down
at 16KHz and the SM57 is 10dB down at 15KHz. At the bottom end the SM57
drops rapidly from 200Hz to -10dB at 50Hz. The D190 drops gently from 1KHz
to 100Hz by about 4dB then drops more rapidly to -10dB at 30Hz. Top and
bottom are therefore different but not especially so. IMHO the biggest
difference is in the mid range between 1KHz and 10KHz. The SM57 has a
pronounced 5dB peak in this range consisting of a series of smaller peaks
before dropping to about -5dB at 10KHz. No doubt this is what gives it its
characteristic sound. The D190 is virtually flat from 1KHz to 8 KHz and
drops to just -2dB at 10KHz.

So in conclusion, the SM57 clearly has a 'sound' but the D190 has a smoother
response (and it looks cooler too) and to me sounds better.

Ian

[Steve King]

"Ian Bell" > wrote in message
news:46169180.0@entanet...
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>> On Apr 6, 3:00 am, Ian Bell > wrote:

>
> I never read Mix magazine here in the UK but I'll try to see if I can find
> back issues on line. I would just like to know of a couple of zillion
> seller tracks that definitely used 57 on snare so I can listen and judge
> for myself.
>
> Ian

The predecessor to the SM57 was the Shure 545, which had the same capsule.
I think the only difference was the Amphenol connector vs. the XLR on the
SM57. At Sound Studios in Chicago we used 545s on snare, toms, guitar cabs,
even on baritone sax. The mic simply sat well in the mix for the type of
music we were recording in the early 70s. We also had a full range of
Telefunken, Neumann, Shoeps, AKG, and Sony condensers. As far as zillion
sellers (however that much is) Chaka Kahn and the Chi-Lites, , and a bunch
of non-zillion sellers blues artists, but important never-the-less, produced
by the great Willie Dixon. All of that recorded on one of the first Neve
consoles in the USA to 3M 16 track. I'm pretty sure that SM57s were used
on guitar cabs and as part of the drum kit micing at Paragon for Styx, Ohio
Players, Muddy Waters, and the first McCartney Wings album. I can't be sure
of that, because Barry Mraz was the engineer on those sessions. Mraz double
and triple miced most of the drums using SM57s as well as various SD
condensers. The SM57 isn't the greatest mic in the world, but it often sits
better in the mix than more expensive mics. It certainly isn't IMO as bad
as you seem to think, but to each his own. Of course, today people are
going for a different sound than we were. For instance everything was
close-miced. I had never heard of room mics, except when recording
orchestras and choirs, until I started reading these news groups.

Steve King

[Steve King]

"Ian Bell" > wrote in message
news:4616a720.0@entanet...
> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ian Bell" > wrote in message
>
>>>
>>> That's just what I do not understand. I used to have one and every time
>>> I
>>> used it the sound was crap. Put a D190 on the same source and it was
>>> transformed. Gave the 57 away in the end.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>
>> Hmmm... I dearly love all of the older AKG dynamic mic series... I
>> have
>> multiples of all of them. However, the D-190e doesn't have anywhere near
>> the frequency response -on either end- of an SM-57, it just looks cooler.
>> I wonder what was rolled off by the 190 that made you like it better than
>> a 57.
>
> AFAIK the D190E response is at least as good as the 57. In point of fact
> at
> the top end there is little to choose between them. The D190 is 10dB down
> at 16KHz and the SM57 is 10dB down at 15KHz. At the bottom end the SM57
> drops rapidly from 200Hz to -10dB at 50Hz. The D190 drops gently from 1KHz
> to 100Hz by about 4dB then drops more rapidly to -10dB at 30Hz. Top and
> bottom are therefore different but not especially so. IMHO the biggest
> difference is in the mid range between 1KHz and 10KHz. The SM57 has a
> pronounced 5dB peak in this range consisting of a series of smaller peaks
> before dropping to about -5dB at 10KHz. No doubt this is what gives it its
> characteristic sound. The D190 is virtually flat from 1KHz to 8 KHz and
> drops to just -2dB at 10KHz.
>
> So in conclusion, the SM57 clearly has a 'sound' but the D190 has a
> smoother
> response (and it looks cooler too) and to me sounds better.
>
> Ian

'Sounds better' doesn't have much meaning to me unless it is in the context
of a particular recording.

By the way, Ian. Could you have been the Neve guy who came to Chicago to
install a Neve 8-track board? I remember Rupert visiting the studio later
after we added the purchase of two 4-track production consoles.

Steve King

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 6, 2:32 pm, Ian Bell > wrote:

> I never read Mix magazine here in the UK but I'll try to see if I can find
> back issues on line. I would just like to know of a couple of zillion
> seller tracks that definitely used 57 on snare so I can listen and judge
> for myself.

Look, if an SM57 didn't work for you, that's OK. It's no reason for
you doubt that it isn't useful to others. I don't think the SM57 snare
drum sound the way most people aim for sounds like a snare drum, but
it's a well known and well recognized sound. Some EQ and reverb
contributes to that sound - it's not just the mic, and in fact I
wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't get that same sound with other
mics. Just because the SM57 is commonly used doesn't mean it's a great
mic, it just means that it can be depended upon to deliver a certain
sound (which you might not even like).

You don't have to like what an SM57 sounds like on whatever you've
used it on, but give the arguments a rest. People aren't going to
start buying D190s because you like them better than SM57s.

[Scott Fraser]

> The predecessor to the SM57 was the Shure 545, which had the same capsule.
> I think the only difference was the Amphenol connector vs. the XLR on the
> SM57. >>

I've encountered 545's with XLR connectors. Maybe the only real
difference is just the brushed stainless finish on the 545 vs the dark
gray-ish paint for the 57.

Scott Fraser

[Steve King]

"Scott Fraser" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> The predecessor to the SM57 was the Shure 545, which had the same
>> capsule.
>> I think the only difference was the Amphenol connector vs. the XLR on the
>> SM57. >>
>
> I've encountered 545's with XLR connectors. Maybe the only real
> difference is just the brushed stainless finish on the 545 vs the dark
> gray-ish paint for the 57.
>
> Scott Fraser

Could be that's the difference. Reducing the mfg. cost.

Steve

[Scott Dorsey]

Steve King > wrote:
>"Scott Fraser" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>> The predecessor to the SM57 was the Shure 545, which had the same
>>> capsule.
>>> I think the only difference was the Amphenol connector vs. the XLR on the
>>> SM57. >>
>>
>> I've encountered 545's with XLR connectors. Maybe the only real
>> difference is just the brushed stainless finish on the 545 vs the dark
>> gray-ish paint for the 57.
>
>Could be that's the difference. Reducing the mfg. cost.

For a long time, they both had XLR connectors, and the 545 was the cheaper
version that was sold into the contractor market. The rumor (not verified
and probably not true) was that the 545 had capsules that were rejects from
the SM-57 production.

However, because the brushed finish is very popular in Asia, and there is
a huge demand for the things in the Kareoke market in Japan, the price
on the 545 is now actually higher than that of the SM-57.

The 545 is still in the catalogue although sadly you can't buy the version
with the Amphenol any more and haven't for a long time.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ian Bell]

Steve King wrote:

>
> 'Sounds better' doesn't have much meaning to me unless it is in the
> context of a particular recording.
>

Of course. I have not made any secret that this is a personal preference.

> By the way, Ian. Could you have been the Neve guy who came to Chicago to
> install a Neve 8-track board? I remember Rupert visiting the studio later
> after we added the purchase of two 4-track production consoles.
>
> Steve King

Possibly. I was at Neve from 74 to 76 and it was a very busy period. I did
consoles for The Who at Ramport, The Kinks, Abba, ABC FM, lots of radio
consoles for the new commercial radio stations in the UK. The US was a big
market for us then - we did the NBC behemoth for the Olympics while I was
there for example. I didn't do much on the installation side except
occasional trouble shooting or more often driving lessons for the studio
engineers.

Ian

Ian

[Ian Bell]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> On Apr 6, 2:32 pm, Ian Bell > wrote:
>
>> I never read Mix magazine here in the UK but I'll try to see if I can
>> find back issues on line. I would just like to know of a couple of
>> zillion seller tracks that definitely used 57 on snare so I can listen
>> and judge for myself.
>
> Look, if an SM57 didn't work for you, that's OK. It's no reason for
> you doubt that it isn't useful to others.

I never doubted that. All I said was I don't understand why others like it
so much.

> I don't think the SM57 snare
> drum sound the way most people aim for sounds like a snare drum, but
> it's a well known and well recognized sound. Some EQ and reverb
> contributes to that sound - it's not just the mic, and in fact I
> wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't get that same sound with other
> mics. Just because the SM57 is commonly used doesn't mean it's a great
> mic, it just means that it can be depended upon to deliver a certain
> sound (which you might not even like).
>

I don't.

> You don't have to like what an SM57 sounds like on whatever you've
> used it on, but give the arguments a rest.

What arguments. I am merely stating an opinion. No need to get upset.

> People aren't going to
> start buying D190s because you like them better than SM57s.


I am not asking them to. I am merely stating my preferences. Are you OK with
that?

Ian

[Laurence Payne]

On 6 Apr 2007 20:27:22 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>The 545 is still in the catalogue although sadly you can't buy the version
>with the Amphenol any more and haven't for a long time.

Did we like Amphenol better than XLR then?

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 7, 3:07 am, Ian Bell > wrote:

> I never doubted that. All I said was I don't understand why others like it
> so much.

Some people don't like chocolate. Some people don't like sex with
animals. It doesn't take too long before those who don't stop asking
why those who do, do. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but
it's just getting a little tiring, that's all.

People like the sound of an SM57 for recording certain things because
it's the sound that their clients expect. It makes them money. Most of
us do a certain amount of whoring in this business.

[Agent 86]

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:54:36 +0100, Ian Bell wrote:

> That said, the 57 is primarily a gigging vocal mic and the original
> version most likely had a built in transformer ...

Yes, as does the current version, and every version in between.

>to give hi Z output
> designed to run unbalanced straight into a valve PA or guitar amp.

Nope, The really old ones I've used were even lower impedance than the
current ones.

>I don't know its history but I suspect the 600 ohm version came out later
> once transistor PAs became common with lo Z unbalanced inputs, So on
> balance I think the 57 was *not* designed to work into a transformer.

There has never been a 600 ohm SM57. The current one is 150 ohms. If
memory serves, the really old ones were 38 ohms or some weird number like
that. I think they were dual impedance one at one point. (If you're
old enough to remember that, it's likely your memory's not so good
anymore.) They have been 150 ohms for quite a long time.

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote:
>On 6 Apr 2007 20:27:22 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>The 545 is still in the catalogue although sadly you can't buy the version
>>with the Amphenol any more and haven't for a long time.
>
>Did we like Amphenol better than XLR then?

ANYTHING that keeps people from running off with your mikes is a good thing.
Nonstandard connectors, Peavey stickers glued on the side, repaint jobs with
purple metalflake.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>People like the sound of an SM57 for recording certain things because
>it's the sound that their clients expect. It makes them money. Most of
>us do a certain amount of whoring in this business.

That said, I occasionally get singers in the studio who absolutely HAVE
to use an SM-58 and aren't comfortable with anything else. None of them
have noticed yet that the SM-58 I give them is actually an omni and has
a 5-pin XLR and a B&K capsule inside.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Agent 86 > wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:54:36 +0100, Ian Bell wrote:
>
>>I don't know its history but I suspect the 600 ohm version came out later
>> once transistor PAs became common with lo Z unbalanced inputs, So on
>> balance I think the 57 was *not* designed to work into a transformer.
>
>There has never been a 600 ohm SM57. The current one is 150 ohms. If
>memory serves, the really old ones were 38 ohms or some weird number like
>that. I think they were dual impedance one at one point. (If you're
>old enough to remember that, it's likely your memory's not so good
>anymore.) They have been 150 ohms for quite a long time.

That is, the rated output impedance is 150 ohms. The load impedance
they sound best at is about four times the rated output.

I don't remember any dual-impedance SM-57, but I do remember lots of
people taking the transformer out of the SM-57 to make a very different
sounding (and lower output) mike.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 7, 8:52 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> That said, I occasionally get singers in the studio who absolutely HAVE
> to use an SM-58 and aren't comfortable with anything else. None of them
> have noticed yet that the SM-58 I give them is actually an omni and has
> a 5-pin XLR and a B&K capsule inside.

This psychoacoustic phenomenon is more prevalent among stage
performers, particularly those in the middle range of experience. The
inexperienced ones don't know one mic from another. The highly
experienced ones who don't travel with their own gear and engineer
usually have the sense to listen to the house sound and have
confidence in the sound company. It's those in the middle who don't
have confidence in anybody (including themselves) who insist on a
familiar mic.

It's the same with a drummer who's used to seeing an SM57 on his
snare, and assumes that if there's on there, he'll have "his" sound
(which isn't always true).

[Agent 86]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 08:54:52 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Agent 86 > wrote:
>>On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:54:36 +0100, Ian Bell wrote:
>>
>>>I don't know its history but I suspect the 600 ohm version came out
>>>later
>>> once transistor PAs became common with lo Z unbalanced inputs, So on
>>> balance I think the 57 was *not* designed to work into a transformer.
>>
>>There has never been a 600 ohm SM57. The current one is 150 ohms. If
>>memory serves, the really old ones were 38 ohms or some weird number like
>>that. I think they were dual impedance one at one point. (If you're old
>>enough to remember that, it's likely your memory's not so good anymore.)
>>They have been 150 ohms for quite a long time.
>
> That is, the rated output impedance is 150 ohms. The load impedance they
> sound best at is about four times the rated output.
>
> I don't remember any dual-impedance SM-57, but I do remember lots of
> people taking the transformer out of the SM-57 to make a very different
> sounding (and lower output) mike.

Here's a link to the spec sheet for a dual impedance SM56.



I thought I remembered seeing a similar sheet for 57s & 58s. Instead of a
switch under a plate, you swapped one wire on the XLR connector.

But I couldn't fine it on the Shure website, so maybe I hallucinated it.

[Ian Bell]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> On Apr 7, 3:07 am, Ian Bell > wrote:
>
>> I never doubted that. All I said was I don't understand why others like
>> it so much.
>
> Some people don't like chocolate. Some people don't like sex with
> animals. It doesn't take too long before those who don't stop asking
> why those who do, do. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but
> it's just getting a little tiring, that's all.
>

What is tiring? I am just having an interesting conversation with a few folk
in this group.

Ian

[Scott Dorsey]

Agent 86 > wrote:
>
>Here's a link to the spec sheet for a dual impedance SM56.
>


Yes! This is an SM-57 capsule, but with a different transformer (for the
high-Z output) and a different (and really handy for drum miking) body.


>I thought I remembered seeing a similar sheet for 57s & 58s. Instead of a
>switch under a plate, you swapped one wire on the XLR connector.

That probably wasn't a 57, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 545 and some
of the other installed sound mikes were that way.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Steve King]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Agent 86 > wrote:
>>
>>Here's a link to the spec sheet for a dual impedance SM56.
>>

>
> Yes! This is an SM-57 capsule, but with a different transformer (for the
> high-Z output) and a different (and really handy for drum miking) body.
>
>
>>I thought I remembered seeing a similar sheet for 57s & 58s. Instead of a
>>switch under a plate, you swapped one wire on the XLR connector.
>
> That probably wasn't a 57, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 545 and some
> of the other installed sound mikes were that way.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

The 546 had the same pivoting mount with the hi/lo impedance switch.

Steve King

[Scott Fraser]

<< I occasionally get singers in the studio who absolutely HAVE
> to use an SM-58 and aren't comfortable with anything else. None of them
> have noticed yet that the SM-58 I give them is actually an omni and has
> a 5-pin XLR and a B&K capsule inside.
> --scott


That's one I've never encountered. Usually it's the opposite, where
they really want a U87 or a C414, when an MD441 or even a KM84 sound
better, but just don't have the familar look they're comfotable with.
I have occasionally taped a Countryman Isomax omni to a U87 & used the
omni for the final mix.

Scott Fraser

[Scott Fraser]

Instead of a
> >switch under a plate, you swapped one wire on the XLR connector.
>
> That probably wasn't a 57, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 545 and some
> of the other installed sound mikes were that way.>>

Even though I haven't been around a 545 in a quarter century, my
recollection is of switcheable impedance within the connector,
although I'm kind of half remembering a 4 pin (non-XLR) connector,
with the selection being made on the female 4 pin of a supplied 4 pin
to XLR cable. This may have been for a Shure 55, though.

Scott Fraser

[hank alrich]

Scott Fraser wrote:

> I have occasionally taped a Countryman Isomax omni to a U87 & used the
> omni for the final mix.

Me, too. "Oh, we're just experimenting with some effects in the control
room and don't want to mess with your main vocal mic"...

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Agent 86]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 15:40:27 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Agent 86 > wrote:
>>
>>Here's a link to the spec sheet for a dual impedance SM56.
>>

>
> Yes! This is an SM-57 capsule, but with a different transformer (for the
> high-Z output) and a different (and really handy for drum miking) body.

Look again. What Shure called high-Z back then was the now standard 150
ohms. Low-Z was 38 ohms.

I like the built-in stand swivel too. The current Beta-56 is similar, but
not quite.

>>I thought I remembered seeing a similar sheet for 57s & 58s. Instead of
>>a switch under a plate, you swapped one wire on the XLR connector.
>
> That probably wasn't a 57, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 545 and
> some of the other installed sound mikes were that way.

They were indeed, but in their case 150 ohms was the low-Z setting, and
the high-Z setting was simply called "High impedance" - not a specific
ohms value. Presumably, it was in the 10K - 50K range we would call high-Z
today.

[Ian Bell]

Agent 86 wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:54:36 +0100, Ian Bell wrote:
>
>> That said, the 57 is primarily a gigging vocal mic and the original
>> version most likely had a built in transformer ...
>
> Yes, as does the current version, and every version in between.
>

Interesting.


>>to give hi Z output
>> designed to run unbalanced straight into a valve PA or guitar amp.
>
> Nope, The really old ones I've used were even lower impedance than the
> current ones.
>

Also interesting. Thanks for the update.

>>I don't know its history but I suspect the 600 ohm version came out later
>> once transistor PAs became common with lo Z unbalanced inputs, So on
>> balance I think the 57 was *not* designed to work into a transformer.
>
> There has never been a 600 ohm SM57. The current one is 150 ohms. If
> memory serves, the really old ones were 38 ohms or some weird number like
> that. I think they were dual impedance one at one point. (If you're
> old enough to remember that, it's likely your memory's not so good
> anymore.) They have been 150 ohms for quite a long time.

Sorry I meant for feeding a 600 ohm mic input. I should have been more
specific. I am not surprised their output Z is around 150 ohms as that is
fairly typical for a dynamic mic.


IAn

[Agent 86]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 22:34:01 +0100, Ian Bell wrote:

> Agent 86 wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:54:36 +0100, Ian Bell wrote:
>>

>>>I don't know its history but I suspect the 600 ohm version came out
>>>later
>>> once transistor PAs became common with lo Z unbalanced inputs, So on
>>> balance I think the 57 was *not* designed to work into a transformer.
>>
>> There has never been a 600 ohm SM57. The current one is 150 ohms. If
>> memory serves, the really old ones were 38 ohms or some weird number
>> like that. I think they were dual impedance one at one point. (If you're
>> old enough to remember that, it's likely your memory's not so good
>> anymore.) They have been 150 ohms for quite a long time.
>
> Sorry I meant for feeding a 600 ohm mic input. I should have been more
> specific. I am not surprised their output Z is around 150 ohms as that is
> fairly typical for a dynamic mic.

It gets kind of confusing, doesn't it. I assumed you were talking about
mic impedance, because some of the newer dynamics actually are 600 ohms
(AT, notably).

[Les Cargill]

Ian Bell wrote:

> ostaz wrote:
>
>
>>I have an SM-58 beta that I use primarily as a live vocal mic. I've
>>noticed that a lot of people on this forum own a 57 for recording various
>>things
>>like percussion. I've never liked the 57 very much because I always
>>percieved it's sound as being very small-ish and "boxy" sounding. Can
>>someone please explain the appeal of the 57 and why it fits this
>>application
>>more than a 58? Also, can someone please explain why one would want to
>>use a 57 (or 58) rather than a small diaphragm condenser like the Rode
>>nt-5 or
>>other suitable models? I haven't heard a 57 in action for many years and
>>I just want to know if I'm missing something....I can always pick one up
>>if they are useful to have around!
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Pete
>
>
>
> I don't think you are missing anything. IMHO they 57/58 are crap. I have
> never understood why people rate them for snares or guitar cabs unless you
> want a particularly dull sound.
>
> Ian

People like them because they work well in those applications.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Ian Bell wrote:

> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>
>
>>"Ian Bell" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>No, I think that has happened as well. It may still be just a US thing.
>>>How many Europeans on this list think the 57 is a great mic?
>>
>>If I wear a suit jacket with long pointed lapels, can I be a European too?
>> :-)
>>
>>A 57 is just a utility mic... rugged & durable... from hammering nails
>>to capturing a pristine Orange amp tone; from drums to dobro...
>>it just seems to work well. (I won't say the highland pipes).
>>
>>Everybody needs 57's in the kit.... Are you being served?
>>
>>
>
>
>
> That's just what I do not understand. I used to have one and every time I
> used it the sound was crap. Put a D190 on the same source and it was
> transformed. Gave the 57 away in the end.
>
> Ian

What were you loading the 57 with? They're quite load sensitive.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

> "Ian Bell" > wrote in message...
>
>
>>That said, the 57 is primarily a gigging vocal mic
>
>
>
> Oh... kick me.... ooooooooo.... I simply 'hate' when some schmuck asks
> for an SM-57 to sing into.... owwwwww... pinch me.. agrhhh.... wake me
> up from a really b-b-b-bad dream... please.... ohhhhhh...... sniff.... choke...
>
>
> ;-)
>
>

Whaaat? Other'n one of those Neumann KMS105, what's a better choice?
Don't say Sennheiser. I've had great luck with a 57 for my
vox for a very long time.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Fraser]

> Whaaat? Other'n one of those Neumann KMS105, what's a better choice?>>

It's a pretty long list. Easier to mention those mics which AREN'T a
better choice.

> Don't say Sennheiser.

Well, Sennheiser, for one. The series which includes the 865.

<< I've had great luck with a 57 for my
> vox for a very long time.>>

Anything by Audix, many EV's, higher end Shures (most of the beta
series, the SM87 & its many derivatives), even a couple AKG's although
they've changed the line so much in recent years I don't know the
models anymore.

Scott Fraser

[Scott Dorsey]

Scott Fraser > wrote:
>> Whaaat? Other'n one of those Neumann KMS105, what's a better choice?>>
>
>It's a pretty long list. Easier to mention those mics which AREN'T a
>better choice.
>
>> Don't say Sennheiser.
>
>Well, Sennheiser, for one. The series which includes the 865.

Yeah, but Sennheiser discontinued the better models from that series,
like the e855. Now all we have left is the 431, not that the 431 is
a bad thing in any way.
--scott


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

[Les Cargill]

Scott Fraser wrote:

>>Whaaat? Other'n one of those Neumann KMS105, what's a better choice?>>
>
>
> It's a pretty long list. Easier to mention those mics which AREN'T a
> better choice.
>
>
>>Don't say Sennheiser.
>
>
> Well, Sennheiser, for one. The series which includes the 865.
>

I don't like any of those that I've tried. This from
recorded tracks out the insert during live shows.

> << I've had great luck with a 57 for my
>
>>vox for a very long time.>>
>
>
> Anything by Audix,

I've thought about an OM5 more than once...

> many EV's, higher end Shures (most of the beta
> series, the SM87 & its many derivatives),

Those aren't too bad.

> even a couple AKG's although
> they've changed the line so much in recent years I don't know the
> models anymore.
>

I really think I just like the presence hump on the
SM57.

> Scott Fraser
>
--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>I really think I just like the presence hump on the SM57.

It's nice for some things. It's irritating for others.

If you like it, try the Beyer M-500. It's like God's own SM-57.
--scott

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

[Scott Fraser]

> > even a couple AKG's although
> > they've changed the line so much in recent years I don't know the
> > models anymore.
>
> I really think I just like the presence hump on the
> SM57.>>

Try an AKG C535 if you want some presence. Or a 451 with a CK5
capsule. Presence for days, yet not an ugly screechy boost like some
of the cheap electrets.

Scott Fraser

[Scott Fraser]

> Yeah, but Sennheiser discontinued the better models from that series,
> like the e855. Now all we have left is the 431, not that the 431 is
> a bad thing in any way.
> --scott>>

Yeah, the 431 is a very decent mic, although rather low output &
pricy. I believe the Sennheiser e835 is a current model, though I
don't know if it's a lesser mic than the e865. The model number would
indicate so.

Scott Fraser

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Les Cargill wrote:
> >
> >I really think I just like the presence hump on the SM57.
>
> It's nice for some things. It's irritating for others.
>
> If you like it, try the Beyer M-500. It's like God's own SM-57.

Amen. In the early '70's I chose four M500's over 4 SM57's. Never
regretted that. Still have two of them.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Mike]

On 2007-04-08, Scott Fraser > wrote:
>> Yeah, but Sennheiser discontinued the better models from that series,
>> like the e855. Now all we have left is the 431, not that the 431 is
>> a bad thing in any way.
>> --scott>>
>
> Yeah, the 431 is a very decent mic, although rather low output &
> pricy. I believe the Sennheiser e835 is a current model, though I
> don't know if it's a lesser mic than the e865. The model number would
> indicate so.
>

I own an e935 and have sung through many an e835. They are
excellent-->decent stage vox mics, but are they the type of
dynamic that works well for instrumentation?

--
Mike

The tenor's voice is spoilt by affectation,
And for the bass, the beast can only bellow;
In fact, he had no singing education,
An ignorant, noteless, timeless, tuneless fellow. -- Lord Byron

[Scott Dorsey]

Scott Fraser > wrote:
>> Yeah, but Sennheiser discontinued the better models from that series,
>> like the e855. Now all we have left is the 431, not that the 431 is
>> a bad thing in any way.
>
>Yeah, the 431 is a very decent mic, although rather low output &
>pricy. I believe the Sennheiser e835 is a current model, though I
>don't know if it's a lesser mic than the e865. The model number would
>indicate so.

e835 is a dynamic with a pattern wide as a barn. Serious leakage problems,
and the leakage doesn't sound good. The e855 was a much tighter and better
sounding dynamic, but it's gone now. The e865 is okay, but harsher on top.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>>I really think I just like the presence hump on the SM57.
>
>
> It's nice for some things. It's irritating for others.
>
> If you like it, try the Beyer M-500. It's like God's own SM-57.
> --scott
>

If I could find one, I'd use an original Beyer M-88 ( not
the T ).

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > Les Cargill wrote:
> >
> >>I really think I just like the presence hump on the SM57.
> >
> >
> > It's nice for some things. It's irritating for others.
> >
> > If you like it, try the Beyer M-500. It's like God's own SM-57.
> > --scott
> >
>
> If I could find one, I'd use an original Beyer M-88 ( not
> the T ).

I have a pair of those. Wonderfully useful mic.

Back in the day I bought 4 M500's, 2 M160's, 2 M88's, and an M360.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Ian Bell]

Les Cargill wrote:

>
> What were you loading the 57 with? They're quite load sensitive.
>
> --


A Neve mic pre.

Ian

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message...

> If I could find one, I'd use an original Beyer M-88 ( not the T ).

An M-69 isn't all that bad....

[Scott Dorsey]

Agent 86 > wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 15:40:27 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Agent 86 > wrote:
>>>
>>>Here's a link to the spec sheet for a dual impedance SM56.
>>>

>>
>> Yes! This is an SM-57 capsule, but with a different transformer (for the
>> high-Z output) and a different (and really handy for drum miking) body.
>
>Look again. What Shure called high-Z back then was the now standard 150
>ohms. Low-Z was 38 ohms.

Hmm... I was thinking about something like the Shure 315, which has a HML
switch that selects 30, 150, and something like 2k ohm taps on the
transformer. May not be representative, but the idea was that it could
go into a low-Z input, a modern-style input, or a high-Z transformerless
input.

>> That probably wasn't a 57, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 545 and
>> some of the other installed sound mikes were that way.
>
>They were indeed, but in their case 150 ohms was the low-Z setting, and
>the high-Z setting was simply called "High impedance" - not a specific
>ohms value. Presumably, it was in the 10K - 50K range we would call high-Z
>today.

Back then, you used to see a lot of communications microphones with High-Z
unbalanced outputs in the 10K region, which would be plugged right into the
grid of a tube with no transformer in the preamp. The Shure Green Bullet
remains a good example of that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>If I could find one, I'd use an original Beyer M-88 ( not
>the T ).

What is wrong with the TG-series ones? I haven't ever used one.
--scott


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

[Tim Padrick]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Fraser > wrote:
>>> Yeah, but Sennheiser discontinued the better models from that series,
>>> like the e855. Now all we have left is the 431, not that the 431 is
>>> a bad thing in any way.
>>
>>Yeah, the 431 is a very decent mic, although rather low output &
>>pricy. I believe the Sennheiser e835 is a current model, though I
>>don't know if it's a lesser mic than the e865. The model number would
>>indicate so.
>
> e835 is a dynamic with a pattern wide as a barn. Serious leakage
> problems,
> and the leakage doesn't sound good. The e855 was a much tighter and
> better
> sounding dynamic, but it's gone now. The e865 is okay, but harsher on
> top.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

My experience with 835s is quite the opposite. Less wash, better GbfFB and
better sound than a 58.

The OM7 is my choice so far.

[GepcoChris]

On Apr 4, 1:21 pm, "ostaz" > wrote:
> I have an SM-58 beta that I use primarily as a live vocal mic. I've noticed
> that a lot of people on this forum own a 57 for recording various things
> like percussion. I've never liked the 57 very much because I always
> percieved it's sound as being very small-ish and "boxy" sounding. Can
> someone please explain the appeal of the 57 and why it fits this application
> more than a 58? Also, can someone please explain why one would want to use
> a 57 (or 58) rather than a small diaphragm condenser like the Rode nt-5 or
> other suitable models? I haven't heard a 57 in action for many years and I
> just want to know if I'm missing something....I can always pick one up if
> they are useful to have around!
>
> Thanks,
> Pete

The Beta 58 has a neodymium magnet as opposed to a standard magnet.
The neodymium gives a richer sound and a little bit more in price than
the standard SM series. Anything "Beta" in the part number has
neodymium in it.

[Scott Dorsey]

Tim Padrick > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>>
>> e835 is a dynamic with a pattern wide as a barn. Serious leakage
>> problems,
>> and the leakage doesn't sound good. The e855 was a much tighter and
>> better
>> sounding dynamic, but it's gone now. The e865 is okay, but harsher on
>> top.
>
>My experience with 835s is quite the opposite. Less wash, better GbfFB and
>better sound than a 58.

Yes, that's true, but that is more because the 58 is so bad than that the
e835 is so good. Compare the e835 with a 431 and you'll be amazed how much
less leakage you get with the 431.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Agent 86]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:15:53 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:


> Back then, you used to see a lot of communications microphones with High-Z
> unbalanced outputs in the 10K region, which would be plugged right into
> the grid of a tube with no transformer in the preamp. The Shure Green
> Bullet remains a good example of that.

And it would be a damned fine example if it was priced at about half of
what it is.

[Scott Dorsey]

Agent 86 > wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:15:53 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Back then, you used to see a lot of communications microphones with High-Z
>> unbalanced outputs in the 10K region, which would be plugged right into
>> the grid of a tube with no transformer in the preamp. The Shure Green
>> Bullet remains a good example of that.
>
>And it would be a damned fine example if it was priced at about half of
>what it is.

It used to be. And you can still get the EV and Astatic equivalents at
hamfests for ten bucks.

I think Fair Radio Sales has the M-47, which is a lower-Z EV communcations
mike for $8.95 right now. It's a fun toy in the same way the Green Bullet
is, but for a more reasonable price.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>>If I could find one, I'd use an original Beyer M-88 ( not
>>the T ).
>
>
> What is wrong with the TG-series ones? I haven't ever used one.
> --scott
>
>

Oh, sorry - I have never used one either. I just meant
the (not-TG) is a known quantity. Best stage vocal mic I
have ever been in a room with.

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Agent 86 wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>
> > Back then, you used to see a lot of communications microphones with High-Z
> > unbalanced outputs in the 10K region, which would be plugged right into
> > the grid of a tube with no transformer in the preamp. The Shure Green
> > Bullet remains a good example of that.
>
> And it would be a damned fine example if it was priced at about half of
> what it is.

Got to remember those weren't designed for contemporary methods of mass
production.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Tracy Wintermute]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:12:31 -0400, Agent 86 >
wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:15:53 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>
>> Back then, you used to see a lot of communications microphones with High-Z
>> unbalanced outputs in the 10K region, which would be plugged right into
>> the grid of a tube with no transformer in the preamp. The Shure Green
>> Bullet remains a good example of that.
>
>And it would be a damned fine example if it was priced at about half of
>what it is.

What are they going for nowadays?
I paid (if I recall,) about $40 for a new one in seventy-something.


====================
Tracy Wintermute

Rushcreek Ranch
====================

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>Agent 86 wrote:
>
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> > Back then, you used to see a lot of communications microphones with High-Z
>> > unbalanced outputs in the 10K region, which would be plugged right into
>> > the grid of a tube with no transformer in the preamp. The Shure Green
>> > Bullet remains a good example of that.
>>
>> And it would be a damned fine example if it was priced at about half of
>> what it is.
>
>Got to remember those weren't designed for contemporary methods of mass
>production.

Shure was turning out millions of these (and similar) microphones during
WWII... I have seen photos of the plants with young women lined up at
benches winding coils by hand on dowel rods.

I am utterly amazed anyone can do this. I can't even successfully unwind
those coils without messing things up. And doing that sort of work with
today's labor rates, even in Mexico, doesn't make for cheap mikes.

However, on the other side of the coin, those mikes made for the war
effort are still, sixty years later, falling out of the government surplus
pipeline for cheap. Unless they are that ONE model of Shure, or they are
Astatic lollipops, both of which fetch high dollars for some reason.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."