[Ty Ford]

Hey,

Local guys here in Baltimore have come up with a very handy mod for an SM57;
a 90 degree bend.

I get nothing out of this, but the pleasure of passing along a good idea.

I spoke with them yesterday. Sounds like they have their heads screwed on
right, plus I've known them for years.

http://www.granelliaudiolabs.com/

Among others, Baltimore-based Dennis Chambers has been out with these mics
and from what I was told, likes 'em. A bend in the tube without changing the
sound of the mic. That's a neat trick. Haven't heard 'em yet.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[George's Pro Sound Company]

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
al.NET...
Hey,

Local guys here in Baltimore have come up with a very handy mod for an
SM57;
a 90 degree bend.

I get nothing out of this, but the pleasure of passing along a good idea.

I spoke with them yesterday. Sounds like they have their heads screwed on
right, plus I've known them for years.

http://www.granelliaudiolabs.com/

Among others, Baltimore-based Dennis Chambers has been out with these mics
and from what I was told, likes 'em. A bend in the tube without changing
the
sound of the mic. That's a neat trick. Haven't heard 'em yet.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

always room for a good idea
but seems like a lot of effort to try to do with a 57 what a Audix D2 does
so much better without any mods
George

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ET,
Ty Ford wrote:
Hey,

Local guys here in Baltimore have come up with a very handy mod for an SM57;
a 90 degree bend.

I get nothing out of this, but the pleasure of passing along a good idea.

I spoke with them yesterday. Sounds like they have their heads screwed on
right, plus I've known them for years.

http://www.granelliaudiolabs.com/

This IS a good idea... but Shure did it first themselves even better with
the SM56. Write Shure and tell them you want it back!
--scott

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

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford wrote:

Local guys here in Baltimore have come up with a very handy mod for an SM57;
a 90 degree bend.

I get nothing out of this, but the pleasure of passing along a good idea.

I spoke with them yesterday. Sounds like they have their heads screwed on
right, plus I've known them for years.

http://www.granelliaudiolabs.com/

Among others, Baltimore-based Dennis Chambers has been out with these mics
and from what I was told, likes 'em. A bend in the tube without changing the
sound of the mic. That's a neat trick. Haven't heard 'em yet.

Looks like a substitute for an SM56, which was hinged in the middle,
with a short tube to the capsule. I have of those that I need to repair.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 15 May 2009 09:05:34 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

In article ET,
Ty Ford wrote:
Hey,

Local guys here in Baltimore have come up with a very handy mod for an
SM57;
a 90 degree bend.

I get nothing out of this, but the pleasure of passing along a good idea.

I spoke with them yesterday. Sounds like they have their heads screwed on
right, plus I've known them for years.

http://www.granelliaudiolabs.com/

This IS a good idea... but Shure did it first themselves even better with
the SM56. Write Shure and tell them you want it back!
--scott



Apparently they did not. Tests were done. Apparently the SM56 sounds nothing
like an SM57.

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Scott Dorsey]

Ty Ford wrote:

Apparently they did not. Tests were done. Apparently the SM56 sounds nothing
like an SM57.

Weird, since it has the same capsule and transformer. I suppose the
mounting COULD make a substantial difference in sound. If so, I'd be
curious if the angle modification does that as well.
--scott


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

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 15 May 2009 10:23:06 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

Ty Ford wrote:

Apparently they did not. Tests were done. Apparently the SM56 sounds
nothing
like an SM57.

Weird, since it has the same capsule and transformer. I suppose the
mounting COULD make a substantial difference in sound. If so, I'd be
curious if the angle modification does that as well.
--scott




apparently the volume of space behind the capsule matters.

Ty

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford wrote:

On Fri, 15 May 2009 09:05:34 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

In article ET,
Ty Ford wrote:
Hey,

Local guys here in Baltimore have come up with a very handy mod for an
SM57;
a 90 degree bend.

I get nothing out of this, but the pleasure of passing along a good idea.

I spoke with them yesterday. Sounds like they have their heads screwed on
right, plus I've known them for years.

http://www.granelliaudiolabs.com/

This IS a good idea... but Shure did it first themselves even better with
the SM56. Write Shure and tell them you want it back!
--scott



Apparently they did not. Tests were done. Apparently the SM56 sounds nothing
like an SM57.

Ty,

Speaking from experience, an SM-56 _is_ an SM57 in every respect but for
the hinged mounting and the shockmount base. They did offer switchable
impedance, so if one sounded markedly different from an SM57 perhaps
somebody overlooked that feature.

They were highly appreciated back in the day for drums, as they are very
easily positioned around a kit.

They use the same cartridge, and all aspects of the head are indentical
to an SM57.

Shure - Accessories - R57 Cartridge for SM56 and SM57
R57 Replacement Cartridge for Shure SM56 and SM57 Microphones.
http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Produc...ro_R57_content

http://www.shure.com/stellent/groups...ents/web_resou
rce/us_pro_sm56_ug.pdf

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford wrote:

On Fri, 15 May 2009 10:23:06 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

Ty Ford wrote:

Apparently they did not. Tests were done. Apparently the SM56 sounds
nothing
like an SM57.

Weird, since it has the same capsule and transformer. I suppose the
mounting COULD make a substantial difference in sound. If so, I'd be
curious if the angle modification does that as well.
--scott




apparently the volume of space behind the capsule matters.

But there is no real difference there, seriously. I'm still wagering
somebody ovberlooked the SM56's dual impedance feature.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[nebulax]

On May 15, 10:39*am, Ty Ford wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 10:23:06 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

Ty Ford wrote:

Apparently they did not. Tests were done. Apparently the SM56 sounds
nothing
like an SM57.

Weird, since it has the same capsule and transformer. *I suppose the
mounting COULD make a substantial difference in sound. * If so, I'd be
curious if the angle modification does that as well.
--scott

apparently the volume of space behind the capsule matters.

Ty


Looks like Granelli agrees with you on that. Here's something from
their website:

---Original text---

Changing the shape, not the sound

Inside the handle of the SM57 is a small acoustic chamber that affects
the tone of the microphone. Our patent-pending design manages to
change the shape of this chamber without increasing the air volume.
That is critical to keeping the sound that engineers know and trust.
Granelli did not adjust the frequency response, alter the pickup
pattern, or change any other components inside the microphone. It's
still the mic engineers love, with the mod it's always needed.

http://www.granelliaudiolabs.com/information.html

-----------------

[hank alrich]

nebulax wrote:

On May 15, 10:39 am, Ty Ford wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 10:23:06 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

Ty Ford wrote:

Apparently they did not. Tests were done. Apparently the SM56 sounds
nothing
like an SM57.

Weird, since it has the same capsule and transformer. I suppose the
mounting COULD make a substantial difference in sound. If so, I'd be
curious if the angle modification does that as well.
--scott

apparently the volume of space behind the capsule matters.

Ty


Looks like Granelli agrees with you on that. Here's something from
their website:

Maybe even true, but it''s coming directly from the marketing
department. Have any of you people even ever _used_ an SM56? Some of us
have, and some of us are not buying into this story.

Further, plenty of engineers are well past loving SM5x's in most cases,
nevermind thinking that with this mod "it's always needed". Please.

---Original text---

Changing the shape, not the sound

Inside the handle of the SM57 is a small acoustic chamber that affects
the tone of the microphone. Our patent-pending design manages to
change the shape of this chamber without increasing the air volume.
That is critical to keeping the sound that engineers know and trust.
Granelli did not adjust the frequency response, alter the pickup
pattern, or change any other components inside the microphone. It's
still the mic engineers love, with the mod it's always needed.

http://www.granelliaudiolabs.com/information.html

-----------------


--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Sean Conolly]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
nebulax wrote:

On May 15, 10:39 am, Ty Ford wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 10:23:06 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

Ty Ford wrote:

Apparently they did not. Tests were done. Apparently the SM56 sounds
nothing
like an SM57.

Weird, since it has the same capsule and transformer. I suppose the
mounting COULD make a substantial difference in sound. If so, I'd
be
curious if the angle modification does that as well.
--scott

apparently the volume of space behind the capsule matters.

Ty


Looks like Granelli agrees with you on that. Here's something from
their website:

Maybe even true, but it''s coming directly from the marketing
department. Have any of you people even ever _used_ an SM56? Some of us
have, and some of us are not buying into this story.

Further, plenty of engineers are well past loving SM5x's in most cases,
nevermind thinking that with this mod "it's always needed". Please.

Yeah, the biggest advantage of the SM57 is it's versatility. For any
application it's rarely a terrible choice, but rarely the best choice for
the job.

Sean

[Scott Dorsey]

Sean Conolly wrote:

Yeah, the biggest advantage of the SM57 is it's versatility. For any
application it's rarely a terrible choice, but rarely the best choice for
the job.

It's got that huge presence peak, though. That can drive me up the wall,
especially in a world where a lot of PA speakers also have the same huge
presence peak.

There are times when that's good (like on snare), but I find myself
pulling the 6KC equalization down on the SM-57 to make it sound natural.
Yes, it doesn't cut through a mix so well that way, but sometimes that
isn't what you want.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[RD Jones]

On May 15, 1:09*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Ty Ford wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 10:23:06 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

Ty Ford wrote:

Apparently they did not. Tests were done. Apparently the SM56 sounds
nothing
like an SM57.

Weird, since it has the same capsule and transformer. *I suppose the
mounting COULD make a substantial difference in sound. * If so, I'd be
curious if the angle modification does that as well.
--scott

apparently the volume of space behind the capsule matters.

But there is no real difference there, seriously. I'm still wagering
somebody ovberlooked the SM56's dual impedance feature.

If the '56 has impedance taps then it's not the same transformer as
the '57.
Different, yes. Better, maybe ...

Maybe the same as that in a 545?

rd

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:23:07 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in article ):

nebulax wrote:

On May 15, 10:39 am, Ty Ford wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 10:23:06 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

Ty Ford wrote:

Apparently they did not. Tests were done. Apparently the SM56 sounds
nothing
like an SM57.

Weird, since it has the same capsule and transformer. I suppose the
mounting COULD make a substantial difference in sound. If so, I'd be
curious if the angle modification does that as well.
--scott

apparently the volume of space behind the capsule matters.

Ty


Looks like Granelli agrees with you on that. Here's something from
their website:

Maybe even true, but it''s coming directly from the marketing
department. Have any of you people even ever _used_ an SM56? Some of us
have, and some of us are not buying into this story.

Further, plenty of engineers are well past loving SM5x's in most cases,
nevermind thinking that with this mod "it's always needed". Please.

1. Put the Kool Aid down now, Hank.
2. Their "marketing dept." is non-existent. It's two guys who run a studio in
Baltimore.
3. Not loving sm57s? Put the Kool Aid DOWN, Hank.

Felicitously,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Scott Dorsey]

RD Jones wrote:

If the '56 has impedance taps then it's not the same transformer as
the '57.
Different, yes. Better, maybe ...

Maybe the same as that in a 545?

The two SM56es that I have here are not dual-impedance. Then again,
they were probably on their third or fourth owner when I got them
25 years ago and they may not be original.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[crow[_3_]]

On May 15, 9:05*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
In article ET,
Ty Ford wrote:

Hey,

Local guys here in Baltimore have come up with a very handy mod for an SM57;
a 90 degree bend.

I get nothing out of this, but the pleasure of passing along a good idea..

I spoke with them yesterday. Sounds like they have their heads screwed on
right, plus I've known them for years.

http://www.granelliaudiolabs.com/

This IS a good idea... but Shure did it first themselves even better with
the SM56. *Write Shure and tell them you want it back!
--scott

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

I love my Beta 56's on the snare & rack tom...Stan Bronstein used to
have a 'sawed off 57' that he used on his sax for live shows. I like
the Granelli mod. I probably won't seek one out but if one showed up
on Craigslist I would be tempted!

jepp
if it sounds good...IT IS GOOD!

[RD Jones]

On May 16, 9:09*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
RD Jones wrote:



If the '56 has impedance taps then it's not the same transformer as
the '57.
Different, yes. Better, maybe ...

Maybe the same as that in a 545?

The two SM56es that I have here are not dual-impedance. *Then again,
they were probably on their third or fourth owner when I got them
25 years ago and they may not be original.

The .pdf from Shure's website (us_pro_sm56_ug.pdf) does indeed show
a dual impedance transformer, with taps "rated" at 38 and 150 ohms.
Definitely not the same as a 545 which in the dual impedance versions
were high and low, not low and extra-low.

rd