[Mogens V.]

Are SM57 capsules available 'loose', or do other capsules exist,
resembling this for close micing [guitar cabs] ?

If none comes close, I'd assume an SM57 can be taken apart, i.e.
separating the head. What's the approx dimentions of this assembly?

How much of the SM57's close micing qualities are due to the capsule
itself vs the electronics?
I realize diaphragm material, compliance et al.. matters a great deal.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Carey Carlan]

"Mogens V." wrote in news:478df26b$0
:

Are SM57 capsules available 'loose', or do other capsules exist,
resembling this for close micing [guitar cabs] ?

You are planning to disassemble the microphone and mount the capsule on
your guitar cabinet?

If none comes close, I'd assume an SM57 can be taken apart, i.e.
separating the head. What's the approx dimentions of this assembly?

About 1/4" narrower than the case and less than an inch long.

How much of the SM57's close micing qualities are due to the capsule
itself vs the electronics?
I realize diaphragm material, compliance et al.. matters a great deal.

There are no electronics inside an SM-57. It is a dynamic microphone.
Signal goes directly from the capsule to the cable.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mogens V. wrote:
Are SM57 capsules available 'loose', or do other capsules exist,
resembling this for close micing [guitar cabs] ?

Yes. Shure will sell them to you as replacement items. The SM57 and SM58
use basically the same element but have different part numbers.

If none comes close, I'd assume an SM57 can be taken apart, i.e.
separating the head. What's the approx dimentions of this assembly?

It's big... it's pretty much the whole head.

How much of the SM57's close micing qualities are due to the capsule
itself vs the electronics?

There are no electronics, other than that transformer. Reportedly
replacing the transformer with a better one of the same ratio helps a little.
Don't forget the grille and body shape also contribute a lot of the sound.

I realize diaphragm material, compliance et al.. matters a great deal.

Remember, dynamic mike diaphragms aren't flat, but they are bubble shaped,
usually from vacuum-formed mylar. So the actual shape of the diaphragm
and where the reinforcing striped and nubs are placed can affect things
a lot too.
--scott



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

[Geoff]

Mogens V. wrote:
Are SM57 capsules available 'loose', or do other capsules exist,
resembling this for close micing [guitar cabs] ?

If none comes close, I'd assume an SM57 can be taken apart, i.e.
separating the head. What's the approx dimentions of this assembly?

How much of the SM57's close micing qualities are due to the capsule
itself vs the electronics?
I realize diaphragm material, compliance et al.. matters a great deal.

If you want a SM57 capsule, then buy one. Available as spare parts.

"Electronics" ? What electronics ?- there is a transformer....

geoff

[Mogens V.]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Mogens V. wrote:

Are SM57 capsules available 'loose', or do other capsules exist,
resembling this for close micing [guitar cabs] ?


Yes. Shure will sell them to you as replacement items. The SM57 and SM58
use basically the same element but have different part numbers.


If none comes close, I'd assume an SM57 can be taken apart, i.e.
separating the head. What's the approx dimentions of this assembly?


It's big... it's pretty much the whole head.


How much of the SM57's close micing qualities are due to the capsule
itself vs the electronics?


There are no electronics, other than that transformer. Reportedly
replacing the transformer with a better one of the same ratio helps a little.
Don't forget the grille and body shape also contribute a lot of the sound.

Yeah sure, being a dynamic.. dunno where I kept my mind..
WRT the transformer, which kind of improvement are you talking about?
Liniarity, different transfer characteristic..
I always thought it was just fine as is when used as a guitar mic.
Any pointers to such transformer vendors?

I realize diaphragm material, compliance et al.. matters a great deal.


Remember, dynamic mike diaphragms aren't flat, but they are bubble shaped,
usually from vacuum-formed mylar. So the actual shape of the diaphragm
and where the reinforcing striped and nubs are placed can affect things
a lot too.
--scott

Thanks for info, all. I see it isn't worth anything but use it as is.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mogens V. wrote:

Yeah sure, being a dynamic.. dunno where I kept my mind..
WRT the transformer, which kind of improvement are you talking about?
Liniarity, different transfer characteristic..

Maybe a little better bottom end at high levels.

I always thought it was just fine as is when used as a guitar mic.

Then don't worry about it. Unless you get an element without the transformer
in which case you might as well use a better one.

Any pointers to such transformer vendors?

Lundahl probably makes something with the right ratio, although it is
probably too large to fit inside an SM-57.

Thanks for info, all. I see it isn't worth anything but use it as is.

Well, what's wrong with it as it is? If it sounds good, why change anything?
--scott

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

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Mogens V. wrote:

Yeah sure, being a dynamic.. dunno where I kept my mind..
WRT the transformer, which kind of improvement are you talking about?
Liniarity, different transfer characteristic..

Maybe a little better bottom end at high levels.

I always thought it was just fine as is when used as a guitar mic.

Then don't worry about it. Unless you get an element without the
transformer in which case you might as well use a better one.

Any pointers to such transformer vendors?

Lundahl probably makes something with the right ratio, although it is
probably too large to fit inside an SM-57.

Thanks for info, all. I see it isn't worth anything but use it as
is.

Well, what's wrong with it as it is? If it sounds good, why change
anything?

That actually is what he wrote prior to translating it to english ... not
worth bothering about, just use it as is. But why not simply skip that
transformer, surely he will have output voltage enough if he mounts the mic
inside the cabinet or just in front of the loudspeaker! - surely it
transforms up???

--scott


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 16, 7:05 am, "Mogens V."
wrote:
Are SM57 capsules available 'loose', or do other capsules exist,
resembling this for close micing [guitar cabs] ?

To answer half your question, Marc Savoy, maker of fine Cajun
accordions, used to get SM57 heads direct from Shure. He mounted it on
an aluminum bracket attached to the sound box of his accordions.
Without the transformer, it was the perfect pickup for the
application. Most people plugged it directly into a guitar amplifier.

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen wrote:

That actually is what he wrote prior to translating it to english ... not
worth bothering about, just use it as is. But why not simply skip that
transformer, surely he will have output voltage enough if he mounts the mic
inside the cabinet or just in front of the loudspeaker! - surely it
transforms up???

If you do that, it changes the loading on the capsule and the frequency
response changes dramatically. In the eighties it was a very popular
thing to do, and a lot of studios would have a few specially-marked
SM-57s with the transformer removed.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mogens V.]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Mogens V. wrote:

Yeah sure, being a dynamic.. dunno where I kept my mind..
WRT the transformer, which kind of improvement are you talking about?
Liniarity, different transfer characteristic..


Maybe a little better bottom end at high levels.

Well then, as this is for doing low level recordings, probably not worth
bothering about.

I always thought it was just fine as is when used as a guitar mic.

Then don't worry about it. Unless you get an element without the transformer
in which case you might as well use a better one.

Any pointers to such transformer vendors?

Lundahl probably makes something with the right ratio, although it is
probably too large to fit inside an SM-57.

I'll have a look. Thanks to Agent86 too, though it seems this would be a
pointless mod for guitar recordings. I use a fair upper end for my
harmonized cleans, though still not really 'up there'..

Thanks for info, all. I see it isn't worth anything but use it as is.


Well, what's wrong with it as it is? If it sounds good, why change anything?

Nothing wrong with it, it's purely a matter of avoiding the full mic
taking up space with the usual speaker mount. My intend was to mount
the capsule/head in front of recessed speakers, metal grille protected.


FWIW, this is due to going back to mic'd cabs, having experimented with
pure DI (refer my 'DI guitar and bass recording' thread from 022507)
I'm going for a somewhat clear wide range image with a fair amount of
top, and use cab.sims on top of that for the darker parts (i.e. 2/4x12).
Whatever I do DI, I can have a good sound into open amp/speakers, but it
always sounds inferior when not finalized by going sonic.

Think the inexpensive PG57 will be useful? Reviews like
http://www.epinions.com/content_406039400068 suggests a more open
sound with less of the low end and warmth emphasis I might want.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Mogens V. wrote:

Nothing wrong with it, it's purely a matter of avoiding the full mic
taking up space with the usual speaker mount. My intend was to mount
the capsule/head in front of recessed speakers, metal grille
protected.

This will sound sharp anyway - if an open back cabinet I could want to have
one in the cabinet as well, even with a closed cabinet it might be an idea.
It really doesn't matter what the frequency response is, you can always
equalize it; which is to say that you might as well skip having the
transformer in circuit, I can not see it solve any problem by being there.
But that is just my opinion and this is about making a musical instrument do
what the musician - you - wants.

Think the inexpensive PG57 will be useful? Reviews like
http://www.epinions.com/content_406039400068 suggests a more open
sound with less of the low end and warmth emphasis I might want.

Low end and warmth resides in the cabinet, it would no doubt be grossly
unlinear in terms of frequency response, but as a component to blend in it
could be userful .... just an idea, remember that the inside has reverse
polarity compared to the outside, that too may allow for an effect or
constitute A problem.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Geoff]

Mogens V. wrote:


I'll have a look. Thanks to Agent86 too, though it seems this would
be a pointless mod for guitar recordings. I use a fair upper end for
my harmonized cleans, though still not really 'up there'..


Try a Sennie e609. It's unobtrusive and minimal setup involved - just a few
inches of gaffer....

geoff

[david correia]

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote:

That actually is what he wrote prior to translating it to english ... not
worth bothering about, just use it as is. But why not simply skip that
transformer, surely he will have output voltage enough if he mounts the mic
inside the cabinet or just in front of the loudspeaker! - surely it
transforms up???

If you do that, it changes the loading on the capsule and the frequency
response changes dramatically. In the eighties it was a very popular
thing to do, and a lot of studios would have a few specially-marked
SM-57s with the transformer removed.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."



Scott,


Have you a-b'ed a made-in-Mexico 57 with the USA made model it replaced?
Am curious if you've heard or seen any differences.

I have an old school engineer client that prefers earlier USA 57's with
the different writing on them, think they are pre 1983 or so. Says they
are the best ones.

I own a bunch of 57's, but there is one that is my fave, and it's from
1987. It's also the newest one I own.





David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Scott Dorsey]

david correia wrote:

If you do that, it changes the loading on the capsule and the frequency
response changes dramatically. In the eighties it was a very popular
thing to do, and a lot of studios would have a few specially-marked
SM-57s with the transformer removed.


Have you a-b'ed a made-in-Mexico 57 with the USA made model it replaced?
Am curious if you've heard or seen any differences.

I have, although not under super critical conditions, and I didn't hear
any real difference. Fletcher disagrees with me and says the difference
is substantial.

I have an old school engineer client that prefers earlier USA 57's with
the different writing on them, think they are pre 1983 or so. Says they
are the best ones.

I own a bunch of 57's, but there is one that is my fave, and it's from
1987. It's also the newest one I own.

That's where the problems come in. I think before they moved down to
Mexico, the quality control wasn't as good as it is today, so there
were more differences between units.
--scott

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

[soundshaper]

Carey Carlan ha scritto:
"Mogens V." wrote in news:478df26b$0
:

Are SM57 capsules available 'loose', or do other capsules exist,
resembling this for close micing [guitar cabs] ?

You are planning to disassemble the microphone and mount the capsule on
your guitar cabinet?

If none comes close, I'd assume an SM57 can be taken apart, i.e.
separating the head. What's the approx dimentions of this assembly?

About 1/4" narrower than the case and less than an inch long.

How much of the SM57's close micing qualities are due to the capsule
itself vs the electronics?
I realize diaphragm material, compliance et al.. matters a great deal.

There are no electronics inside an SM-57. It is a dynamic microphone.
Signal goes directly from the capsule to the cable.


That's not quite true. The signal passes through a 'transformer' in the lower part of the mic before it hits the XLR. It changes the colour of the output signal. If you rewire an SM57 to bypass the transformer it makes quite a bit of difference to the output signal, but in my opinion it makes it sound worse.

I wouldn't recommend disassembling an SM57 though, the internal signal wires in the head will almost certainly break & are just about impossible to fix (unless you're VERY experienced in soldering).

--
Send from http://www.nonsolonews.net

[Scott Dorsey]

soundshaper wrote:
That's not quite true. The signal passes through a 'transformer' in the lower part of the mic before it hits the XLR. It changes the colour of the output signal. If you rewire an SM57 to bypass the transformer it makes quite a bit of difference to the output signal, but in my opinion it makes it sound worse.

Removing the transformer turns it into a lower impedance microphone. So your
noise floor goes up, and it rings more easily with a typical load. Back in
the seventies, this was a popular thing to do for drum microphones because
the ringing would brighten them up a little. Most studios had a couple
SM-57s that had been marked as being transformerless.

I wouldn't recommend disassembling an SM57 though, the internal signal wires in the head will almost certainly break & are just about impossible to fix (unless you're VERY experienced in soldering).

It's not bad at all. Now, soldering the voice coil wires, THAT is just about
impossible....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[jakdedert]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
soundshaper wrote:
That's not quite true. The signal passes through a 'transformer' in the lower part of the mic before it hits the XLR. It changes the colour of the output signal. If you rewire an SM57 to bypass the transformer it makes quite a bit of difference to the output signal, but in my opinion it makes it sound worse.

Removing the transformer turns it into a lower impedance microphone. So your
noise floor goes up, and it rings more easily with a typical load. Back in
the seventies, this was a popular thing to do for drum microphones because
the ringing would brighten them up a little. Most studios had a couple
SM-57s that had been marked as being transformerless.

I wouldn't recommend disassembling an SM57 though, the internal signal wires in the head will almost certainly break & are just about impossible to fix (unless you're VERY experienced in soldering).

It's not bad at all. Now, soldering the voice coil wires, THAT is just about
impossible....
--scott
No kidding. I bought a dud 57, couple of years ago, figuring I could
take advantage of Shure's $45 flat-fee refurb. Opening it up, I could
see that the voice coil wire was broken at the solder joint to the
terminal strip that connects to the transformer leads.

Long, Long story short, it took me about two hours to splice little bits
of wire to the broken one, get it all reassembled without breaking it
again, and redoing it when that failed.

But I did get a working 57 out the effort for cheap, if you don't count
the time....

jak

[Scott Dorsey]

jakdedert wrote:
No kidding. I bought a dud 57, couple of years ago, figuring I could
take advantage of Shure's $45 flat-fee refurb. Opening it up, I could
see that the voice coil wire was broken at the solder joint to the
terminal strip that connects to the transformer leads.

Long, Long story short, it took me about two hours to splice little bits
of wire to the broken one, get it all reassembled without breaking it
again, and redoing it when that failed.

But I did get a working 57 out the effort for cheap, if you don't count
the time....

It's a good skill to have. While it's not worth the money saved to do
this on an SM-57, once you get the hang of doing it on an SM-57, you
will be able to do it on an EV 666, And it sure is worth the money on
a 666....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."