[Eeyore]

Given certain people's sarcastic comments about the mic list at The Horn
recently
http://thehorn.co.uk/ click on Tech Spec

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.

They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I loathe
with the SMs, so comments ?

I've always loved European mics, they are invariably flatter **, so what
would be your recommendation to the owner given that he'll shrink at
over £70 a mic to widen the choice ? Think Beyer, Sennheiser, AKG for
example.

I had a look at Audix prices and he'll never wear those (except one
maybe).

It's a nice pub / music club but still underperforming IMHO. I think
better 'clearer' mics will help from previous experience since the room
has an odd acoustic to begin with. 'Voiced' mics are NOT what we need
IMHO.

Open to suggestions.

Graham


** I used almost all AKGs (flat as pancakes) when I ran my rig with the
equally flat Sentry IVs (x 4). EQ was something you barely ever needed
to use and then only in moderation. Flat throughout the system works for
me.

Too much modern kit seems to result in using the EQ to fight flaws
elsewhere.

And don't get me started on 31 band graphics ! spit

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore wrote:
Given certain people's sarcastic comments about the mic list at The Horn
recently
http://thehorn.co.uk/ click on Tech Spec

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.

They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I loathe
with the SMs, so comments ?

They are different, and they tend to have more top end extension, but they
still have the massive presence peak that is the dominant feature of the
SM-57 sound. If what you loathe is the presence peak, you won't like the
beta versions either.

I've always loved European mics, they are invariably flatter **, so what
would be your recommendation to the owner given that he'll shrink at
over £70 a mic to widen the choice ? Think Beyer, Sennheiser, AKG for
example.

EV N/D 468.

I had a look at Audix prices and he'll never wear those (except one
maybe).

It's a nice pub / music club but still underperforming IMHO. I think
better 'clearer' mics will help from previous experience since the room
has an odd acoustic to begin with. 'Voiced' mics are NOT what we need
IMHO.

You might actually like the AKG D-880. It is a very tight pattern mike,
it still has a whopping presence peak, but it has a lot more top end
extension, and it is dirt cheap.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Bill Ruys]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Given certain people's sarcastic comments about the mic list at The Horn
recently
http://thehorn.co.uk/ click on Tech Spec

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.

They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I loathe
with the SMs, so comments ?

I've always loved European mics, they are invariably flatter **, so what
would be your recommendation to the owner given that he'll shrink at
over £70 a mic to widen the choice ? Think Beyer, Sennheiser, AKG for
example.

I had a look at Audix prices and he'll never wear those (except one
maybe).

It's a nice pub / music club but still underperforming IMHO. I think
better 'clearer' mics will help from previous experience since the room
has an odd acoustic to begin with. 'Voiced' mics are NOT what we need
IMHO.

Open to suggestions.

Graham


** I used almost all AKGs (flat as pancakes) when I ran my rig with the
equally flat Sentry IVs (x 4). EQ was something you barely ever needed
to use and then only in moderation. Flat throughout the system works for
me.

Too much modern kit seems to result in using the EQ to fight flaws
elsewhere.

And don't get me started on 31 band graphics ! spit



The Beta 58A is a world away from the SM58 in sound. But nope, they are not
flat. If anything they are more tailored than the SM series. In a dense,
live mix, they are way more intelligible, they really cut through. But if
you are after "flat", you don't want the Beta series.

I have both AKG 880s and Beta 58As. The Beta 58A is much more present in
the mids than the AKG, making it sound more articulate and intelligible for
vocals in a live environment. The 880s sound like they have blankets draped
over them by comparison. You don't mention which AKG mics you used, but if
you like flat, you wont like the Shure beta series. The vocalist in our
band much prefers the Shure over the AKG for the reasons I mention. We are
using the AKGs for BVs and a single Beta 58 for vocals these days. I don't
actually think I'd want more than one 58A in the mix.

Bill.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Eeyore]

philicorda wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

And don't get me started on 31 band graphics ! spit

Nothing wrong with graphics for PA work. I bet that if the PA and room
are not great, someone who new what they were doing could improve the
sound with a graphic.

Competence is everything.

I once took over a mix where almost literally ALL the frequencies had been cut
to the max by the house engineer !

'Unpainting' myself out of that was a trial and a half.

I did it though. And I got compliments from some members of the audience. I
always like that.

Graham

[Nick Brown]

On 29 Oct 2008 19:01:30 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
I've always loved European mics, they are invariably flatter **, so what
would be your recommendation to the owner given that he'll shrink at
over £70 a mic to widen the choice ? Think Beyer, Sennheiser, AKG for
example.

EV N/D 468.


Alas by the time it's crossed the Atlantic, the 468 is about double
Graham's price point. Still a little cheaper than a used Sennheiser
441, but not by much.

-Nick

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:44:11 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

I once took over a mix where almost literally ALL the frequencies had been cut
to the max by the house engineer !

I've seen systems where the main eq has been "locked down" by someone
who thought gbf was the only criterion, then every channel on board
eq/d in an exact opposite when someone with ears tried to get the mics
sounding good again.

[Scott Dorsey]

Nick Brown wrote:
On 29 Oct 2008 19:01:30 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
I've always loved European mics, they are invariably flatter **, so what
would be your recommendation to the owner given that he'll shrink at
over £70 a mic to widen the choice ? Think Beyer, Sennheiser, AKG for
example.

EV N/D 468.

Alas by the time it's crossed the Atlantic, the 468 is about double
Graham's price point. Still a little cheaper than a used Sennheiser
441, but not by much.

I kind of think of the N/D 468 as a poor man's 441, to be honest.
Also, the older N/D 408 turns up on Ebay for quite cheap. Now is
the time to buy it before the dollar rises again.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eeyore]

philicorda wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Given certain people's sarcastic comments about the mic list at The Horn
recently
http://thehorn.co.uk/ click on Tech Spec

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.

They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I loathe
with the SMs, so comments ?

I've always loved European mics, they are invariably flatter **, so what
would be your recommendation to the owner given that he'll shrink at
over £70 a mic to widen the choice ? Think Beyer, Sennheiser, AKG for
example.

The Beyer M201 is my favourite kind of SM57.

You can put it where you would normally put a 57 and it will often sound
much better. It is less weird and peaky than a 57. Sounds really nice on
close mic drums, congas. They are bright and have a tight pattern. Great
for PA. They do have a lump in the top end, but it is not too offensive.

The extended top end and high frequency boost is not always good on
guitar amps though, so for recording at least I still use 57s.

I had a look at Audix prices and he'll never wear those (except one
maybe).

It's a nice pub / music club but still underperforming IMHO. I think
better 'clearer' mics will help from previous experience since the room
has an odd acoustic to begin with. 'Voiced' mics are NOT what we need
IMHO.

Open to suggestions.

** I used almost all AKGs (flat as pancakes) when I ran my rig with the
equally flat Sentry IVs (x 4). EQ was something you barely ever needed
to use and then only in moderation. Flat throughout the system works for
me.

Too much modern kit seems to result in using the EQ to fight flaws
elsewhere.

And don't get me started on 31 band graphics ! spit

Nothing wrong with graphics for PA work. I bet that if the PA and room
are not great, someone who new what they were doing could improve the
sound with a graphic.

It's simply my IME, graphics get so abused by halfwit 'engineers' that they
destroy the sound rather than improve it. I never needed one.

Graham

[RD Jones]

On Oct 29, 6:18*pm, Eeyore
wrote:

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.

They still use a transformer, so that's the same.

They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I loathe
with the SMs, so comments ?

Yeah, they sound pretty much similar, just a bit brighter.

The main difference is that the Betas are claimed to be supercardiod.
A tighter pattern couldn't hurt but the SM's are so wide that,
well ...

rd

[RD Jones]

On Oct 29, 8:04*pm, philicorda
wrote:

The Beyer M201 is my favourite kind of SM57.

Seconded on the M201 !

Although I don't group it with the '57. It's just so much
better balanced and without the big hump.

Not sure where the exchange rate puts it but it may be above
club's range.

rd

[Paul Stamler]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Given certain people's sarcastic comments about the mic list at The Horn
recently
http://thehorn.co.uk/ click on Tech Spec

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.

They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I loathe
with the SMs, so comments ?

They're night and day different. The Beta57a, at least, has a significantly
flatter published response than the SM57. It's also a much, much
cleaner-sounding mic, without the high-end spittiness of the SM57. It
doesn't care much about load impedance, indicating that the damping is
mechanical rather than electrical, and it seems just as rugged -- perhaps
more so, given that it doesn't have the plastic doodad on the business end.
You do need to watch out about losing the rubber band that goes around the
grille assembly, though; it damps down a resonance. Maybe get extras from
Shure?

I have less experience with the Beta58, but my limited experience says it's
similarly improved over the SM58, which I loathe. Again, less spit and
sizzle up top, and much lower distortion.

It's a nice pub / music club but still underperforming IMHO. I think
better 'clearer' mics will help from previous experience since the room
has an odd acoustic to begin with. 'Voiced' mics are NOT what we need
IMHO.

The Beta57as would probably be a good choice for instruments, and the
Beta58s for vocals. You can use the 57a for vocals if you use a foam
popscreen.

** I used almost all AKGs (flat as pancakes) when I ran my rig with the
equally flat Sentry IVs (x 4). EQ was something you barely ever needed
to use and then only in moderation. Flat throughout the system works for
me.

I used to do that with Sentry IVs too, with good results. My mics were
Electro-Voice rather than AKG -- RE15s and 16s.

Peace,
Paul

[hank alrich]

Eeyore wrote:

Given certain people's sarcastic comments about the mic list at The Horn
recently
http://thehorn.co.uk/ click on Tech Spec

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.

They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I loathe
with the SMs, so comments ?

I've always loved European mics, they are invariably flatter **, so what
would be your recommendation to the owner given that he'll shrink at
over £70 a mic to widen the choice ? Think Beyer, Sennheiser, AKG for
example.

In the early '70's I bought vocal mics for a band I was in. I chose 4
Beyer M500's at some cost over SM58's, and never regretted the
investment. I still have two of them.

I had a look at Audix prices and he'll never wear those (except one
maybe).

Are Audix vastly more costly than Shure in the UK? I prefer an OM5 over
a 58 though I did have to work with a sound guy in Austin TX who didn't
cotton to them. A far more experienced guy (talking quality, not years)
said it worked well with my so-called voice. Duh... I knew that already.

It's a nice pub / music club but still underperforming IMHO. I think
better 'clearer' mics will help from previous experience since the room
has an odd acoustic to begin with. 'Voiced' mics are NOT what we need
IMHO.

Open to suggestions.

A major problem is that so many artists are comfortable with the Shures
and not willing to try anything else on the spot.

Graham


** I used almost all AKGs (flat as pancakes) when I ran my rig with the
equally flat Sentry IVs (x 4). EQ was something you barely ever needed
to use and then only in moderation. Flat throughout the system works for
me.

Too much modern kit seems to result in using the EQ to fight flaws
elsewhere.

And don't get me started on 31 band graphics ! spit


--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Bob Howes]

Eeyore wrote:


I had a look at Audix prices and he'll never wear those (except one
maybe).


Rat Sound in LA have some "Z Stock" OM-7s for $149 which isn't far out of
your £70 budget at the present exchange rate.

For general use I prefer the OM-5/OM-6 but if you want just one Audix that's
"different" from the other things you're getting and which can definitely
cut through in a troublesome mix, this is a good one to consider. I bought
one from them and quickly went back for 3 more.

http://www.ratsoundsales.com/z_stock_aud_om7.html

Bob

[neats]

watching interested

[George's Pro Sound Company]

"Bill Ruys" wrote in message
...
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Given certain people's sarcastic comments about the mic list at The Horn
recently
http://thehorn.co.uk/ click on Tech Spec

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.

They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I loathe
with the SMs, so comments ?

I've always loved European mics, they are invariably flatter **, so what
would be your recommendation to the owner given that he'll shrink at
over £70 a mic to widen the choice ? Think Beyer, Sennheiser, AKG for
example.

I had a look at Audix prices and he'll never wear those (except one
maybe).

It's a nice pub / music club but still underperforming IMHO. I think
better 'clearer' mics will help from previous experience since the room
has an odd acoustic to begin with. 'Voiced' mics are NOT what we need
IMHO.

Open to suggestions.

Graham


** I used almost all AKGs (flat as pancakes) when I ran my rig with the
equally flat Sentry IVs (x 4). EQ was something you barely ever needed
to use and then only in moderation. Flat throughout the system works for
me.


Flat is the last thing I would want a PA to sound like
the key tomixing is to create space in the mix for each sound, voiced mics
go along way twards helping one achieve that without having to resort to
radical eq

But Flat is a shrill nasty sound for a PA system
and most European mics in the budget range(priced like a 58) are just
freaking horrible as live sound mics
the sennheiser 835 is as bad as any shure mic
now if your talking m88's , 865's 431's yes those are decent sounding mics ,
but so is a 5400,om7, a 105, and a S1
the country of origin has no bearing on what a mic sounds like
there are ****ty mics made all over the world
and there are great mics made all over the world
take the d190, a horrible piece of kit, lifeless and hollow compared to a 57
take a d112 probably the worst drum mic ever made, easily as bad as the beta
52
you pick a mic for how it works with the source your feeding into it, not
some imaginary graph on some marketing department designed spec sheet
George

George

[Anahata]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:18:09 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

I've always loved European mics, they are invariably flatter **, so what
would be your recommendation to the owner given that he'll shrink at
over £70 a mic to widen the choice ? Think Beyer, Sennheiser, AKG for
example.

Open to suggestions.

I've found my Behringer C2s more than adequate as instrument mics for
live sound and at £40 a pair the venue owner will like the price - worth
a try. I haven't tried them on vocals.

--
Anahata
==//== 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk ==//== http://www.myspace.com/maryanahata

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore wrote:

It's simply my IME, graphics get so abused by halfwit 'engineers' that they
destroy the sound rather than improve it. I never needed one.

This is often true, but sadly you can say the same thing of any other
piece of equipment made. Life is just like that.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
RD Jones wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:04=A0pm, philicorda
wrote:

The Beyer M201 is my favourite kind of SM57.

Seconded on the M201 !

Although I don't group it with the '57. It's just so much
better balanced and without the big hump.

Oh, it has the big hump there still, it's just that it doesn't drop off
like a rock above the hump.

The Beyer M-500 is my personal choice for voices that really need that
hump. It's like what an SM-57 would be like in a perfect world.

Not sure where the exchange rate puts it but it may be above
club's range.

Exchange rate is shifting rapidly every day right now, so if you can't afford
it, wait a week and see what happens.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Tim Perry]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Given certain people's sarcastic comments about the mic list at The Horn
recently
http://thehorn.co.uk/ click on Tech Spec

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.

They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I loathe
with the SMs, so comments ?

I have and use a Bets 58 (no suffex). It sounds better, cleaner, clearer
then Sm 58's. I often use it for 'problem' male voices. I.e. a tenner voice
with weak projection.

I have and use Beta 57's. My SM 57's have not been used in over 2 years.


I've always loved European mics, they are invariably flatter **, so what
would be your recommendation to the owner given that he'll shrink at
over £70 a mic to widen the choice ? Think Beyer, Sennheiser, AKG for
example.

Average what the client base expects and demands.


I had a look at Audix prices and he'll never wear those (except one
maybe).


If only one I suggest the OM-6.

It's a nice pub / music club but still underperforming IMHO. I think
better 'clearer' mics will help from previous experience since the room
has an odd acoustic to begin with. 'Voiced' mics are NOT what we need
IMHO.

The way I see it I generally boost the upper mids anyway so having a 'boost'
there isn't a problem.


Open to suggestions.

Graham


Some people that I encounter just cannot or will not adjust to a mic with a
super or hyper card pattern.

You want a low cost vocal mic that sounds fair try something in the Audio
Tchnica MB series.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

I had a look at Audix prices and he'll never wear those (except one
maybe).

Two ways to get Audix mics cheap (er):

eBay

Rat Sound

I've got about 9 Audix mics. OM3 (1), OM5 (4), OM6 (4), if memory serves.
I like the 5s and especially the 6s.

Audix mics are IME so robust that they are probably a better choice than
many, as a used mic.

I've corrected 1 case of bar breath, and a body that was peeling paint.

But most of the rest came in like new condition. I don't think I spent more
than $135 for any of them.

[Ron Johnson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

I had a look at Audix prices and he'll never wear those (except one
maybe).

Two ways to get Audix mics cheap (er):

eBay

Rat Sound

I've got about 9 Audix mics. OM3 (1), OM5 (4), OM6 (4), if memory serves.
I like the 5s and especially the 6s.

Audix mics are IME so robust that they are probably a better choice than
many, as a used mic.

I've corrected 1 case of bar breath, and a body that was peeling paint.

But most of the rest came in like new condition. I don't think I spent more
than $135 for any of them.


I've not bought from them myself, but an online company called
YourMicrophoneConnection was recommended to me by a visiting engineer.
He had bought from them an AudixDP drum mike set which retails over
£1000,00 here - he paid a little over £300 plus £20 delivery from the US.

He sells the vocal mikes also tho at present he seems to be listing
mainly drum mikes.

I was most impressed with both the quality of the kit and the sound.

Ron

[hank alrich]

Bob Howes wrote:

Eeyore wrote:


I had a look at Audix prices and he'll never wear those (except one
maybe).


Rat Sound in LA have some "Z Stock" OM-7s for $149 which isn't far out of
your £70 budget at the present exchange rate.

For general use I prefer the OM-5/OM-6 but if you want just one Audix that's
"different" from the other things you're getting and which can definitely
cut through in a troublesome mix, this is a good one to consider. I bought
one from them and quickly went back for 3 more.

http://www.ratsoundsales.com/z_stock_aud_om7.html

Bob

Very nice mic, keeping in mind its low sensitivity, and that's a great
price for mics that have maybe done one corporate gig, where everything
must look (and sometimes be) brand new.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Given certain people's sarcastic comments about the mic list at The Horn
recently
http://thehorn.co.uk/ click on Tech Spec

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.

They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I loathe
with the SMs, so comments ?

I wouldn't bet too much on published FR graphs, especially Shure's.

If you think that the 57/58 graphs are rocky, just look at the ones for the
OM5/6/7 mics that several of us profess our undying love for in a different
thread. The crazy thing is that as ugly as the FR plots look, they sound
quite natural for close-miced vocals.

[Geoff]

Paul Stamler wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Given certain people's sarcastic comments about the mic list at The
Horn recently
http://thehorn.co.uk/ click on Tech Spec

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.

They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I
loathe with the SMs, so comments ?

They're night and day different. The Beta57a, at least, has a
significantly flatter published response than the SM57. It's also a
much, much cleaner-sounding mic, without the high-end spittiness of
the SM57. It doesn't care much about load impedance, indicating that
the damping is mechanical rather than electrical,

But the hi-end spittiness of the 57 can easily be tamed,
electro-mechanically !


geoff

[Richard Crowley]

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
"Eeyore" wrote ...
Given certain people's sarcastic comments about the mic list at The Horn
recently
http://thehorn.co.uk/ click on Tech Spec

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.

They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I loathe
with the SMs, so comments ?

I wouldn't bet too much on published FR graphs, especially Shure's.

If you think that the 57/58 graphs are rocky, just look at the ones for
the OM5/6/7 mics that several of us profess our undying love for in a
different thread. The crazy thing is that as ugly as the FR plots look,
they sound quite natural for close-miced vocals.

Perhaps because the Audix curves are ~real vs. the Shure curves
likely having been drawn freehand by a marketing gerb?

[Tony[_11_]]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:20:51 +1300, "geoff" wrote:

Paul Stamler wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Given certain people's sarcastic comments about the mic list at The
Horn recently
http://thehorn.co.uk/ click on Tech Spec

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.

They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I
loathe with the SMs, so comments ?

They're night and day different. The Beta57a, at least, has a
significantly flatter published response than the SM57. It's also a
much, much cleaner-sounding mic, without the high-end spittiness of
the SM57. It doesn't care much about load impedance, indicating that
the damping is mechanical rather than electrical,

But the hi-end spittiness of the 57 can easily be tamed,
electro-mechanically !

Can you elaborate on this? I'm aware of the effect of load impedance, but thought it was
mainly at the low end.
Tony

[Paul Stamler]

"geoff" wrote in message
...

They're night and day different. The Beta57a, at least, has a
significantly flatter published response than the SM57. It's also a
much, much cleaner-sounding mic, without the high-end spittiness of
the SM57. It doesn't care much about load impedance, indicating that
the damping is mechanical rather than electrical,

But the hi-end spittiness of the 57 can easily be tamed,
electro-mechanically !

Yes, and it's a big improvement, but it's still not as clean as the Beta.

Peace,
Paul

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
"Eeyore" wrote ...
Given certain people's sarcastic comments about the mic list at The Horn
recently
http://thehorn.co.uk/ click on Tech Spec

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.

They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I loathe
with the SMs, so comments ?

I wouldn't bet too much on published FR graphs, especially Shure's.

If you think that the 57/58 graphs are rocky, just look at the ones for
the OM5/6/7 mics that several of us profess our undying love for in a
different thread. The crazy thing is that as ugly as the FR plots look,
they sound quite natural for close-miced vocals.

Perhaps because the Audix curves are ~real vs. the Shure curves
likely having been drawn freehand by a marketing gerb?

The idea has crossed my mind! ;-)

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Paul Stamler wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
m...

They're night and day different. The Beta57a, at least, has a
significantly flatter published response than the SM57. It's also a
much, much cleaner-sounding mic, without the high-end spittiness of
the SM57. It doesn't care much about load impedance, indicating that
the damping is mechanical rather than electrical,

But the hi-end spittiness of the 57 can easily be tamed,
electro-mechanically !

Yes, and it's a big improvement, but it's still not as clean as the Beta.

But by "clean" I think the difference is more in the top end response
above the presence peak than in the distortion characteristic.
--scott


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

[Eeyore]

Eeyore wrote:

Given certain people's sarcastic comments about the mic list at The Horn
recently
http://thehorn.co.uk/ click on Tech Spec

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.

Sorry for starting this thread and then dropping out of it but I've been
unexpectedly heavily involved with estimates and specifications for a couple
of jobs.

Will get back ASAP

Graham

[hank alrich]

Richard Crowley wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
"Eeyore" wrote ...
Given certain people's sarcastic comments about the mic list at The Horn
recently
http://thehorn.co.uk/ click on Tech Spec

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.

They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I loathe
with the SMs, so comments ?

I wouldn't bet too much on published FR graphs, especially Shure's.

If you think that the 57/58 graphs are rocky, just look at the ones for
the OM5/6/7 mics that several of us profess our undying love for in a
different thread. The crazy thing is that as ugly as the FR plots look,
they sound quite natural for close-miced vocals.

Perhaps because the Audix curves are ~real vs. the Shure curves
likely having been drawn freehand by a marketing gerb?

Or because those measurements were made decades ago with the mics
looking into a transformer front end not the contemporary "affordable"
solid state variety.

A 57 into my Great River is not the same mic as into my Mackie 1202,
even though it is exactly the same mic.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Paul Stamler]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
But the hi-end spittiness of the 57 can easily be tamed,
electro-mechanically !

Yes, and it's a big improvement, but it's still not as clean as the Beta.

But by "clean" I think the difference is more in the top end response
above the presence peak than in the distortion characteristic.

I dunno -- the Beta sounds cleaner to me in the midrange and upper bass too.

Peace,
Paul

[Eeyore]

hank alrich wrote:

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote ...

I wouldn't bet too much on published FR graphs, especially Shure's.

If you think that the 57/58 graphs are rocky, just look at the ones for
the OM5/6/7 mics that several of us profess our undying love for in a
different thread. The crazy thing is that as ugly as the FR plots look,
they sound quite natural for close-miced vocals.

Perhaps because the Audix curves are ~real vs. the Shure curves
likely having been drawn freehand by a marketing gerb?

Or because those measurements were made decades ago with the mics
looking into a transformer front end not the contemporary "affordable"
solid state variety.

Of what impedance too ? Note Paul Stamler's discoveries on this front with the
'57.

If the humps are resonances, today's higher impedance mic imputs will likely
underdamp them and the peaks will be greater.


A 57 into my Great River

Does it have input Z settings ?


is not the same mic as into my Mackie 1202,
even though it is exactly the same mic.

Interesting.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Laurence Payne wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I once took over a mix where almost literally ALL the frequencies had been cut
to the max by the house engineer !

I've seen systems where the main eq has been "locked down" by someone
who thought gbf was the only criterion, then every channel on board
eq/d in an exact opposite when someone with ears tried to get the mics
sounding good again.

LMFAO !

The less EQ the better IME and IMHO. It just sounds so natural in comparison. Oh,
memories. I even recall one late 70's rock band (can't remember the name now though
but the gig was at Hemel Hempstead Pavilion) we did who were so impressed they
insisted the entire crew join them in their dressing room for drinkies. They said
quite literally "we've never heard a sound that good before" !

Graham

[Eeyore]

RD Jones wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.

They still use a transformer, so that's the same.

WHY do they do that ? I'm sure with ultra close miking (try stopping a
vocalist) and proximity effect it overloads the transformer and gives that
gutless grungey sound.

I've been tempted to mod one to bypass the TX.

In fact there's a little known SM47 that has no transformer. It looks
virtually identical to the 57 and to my ears sounds so much sweeter. I have
one somewhere, one of only 2 US mics I own. The other is EV.


They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I loathe
with the SMs, so comments ?

Yeah, they sound pretty much similar, just a bit brighter.

Brighter sounds good esp the way so many 'engineers' mix to phone line
quality these days.


The main difference is that the Betas are claimed to be supercardiod.
A tighter pattern couldn't hurt but the SM's are so wide that,
well ...

Supercardioids can be a problem I've noticed. Not least with monitors where
the pickup pattern just hits the wrong spot.

Graham

[Eeyore]

geoff wrote:

Paul Stamler wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

Given certain people's sarcastic comments about the mic list at The
Horn recently
http://thehorn.co.uk/ click on Tech Spec

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.

They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I
loathe with the SMs, so comments ?

They're night and day different. The Beta57a, at least, has a
significantly flatter published response than the SM57. It's also a
much, much cleaner-sounding mic, without the high-end spittiness of
the SM57. It doesn't care much about load impedance, indicating that
the damping is mechanical rather than electrical,

But the hi-end spittiness of the 57 can easily be tamed,
electro-mechanically !

Electric powered hammer ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

But by "clean" I think the difference is more in the top end response
above the presence peak than in the distortion characteristic.

LMAO !

I had an argument once with George Gleason over the meaning of 'clean'. My
definition is the same as yours.

I think he said it meant better s/n ratio or some other nonsense.

Graham

[John Hardy]

On 10/31/2008 3:18 PM, Eeyore wrote:

RD Jones wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Which I will not defend, I was just wondering if the Beta57a/58a
versions are really any much better than SMs.
They still use a transformer, so that's the same.

WHY do they do that ? I'm sure with ultra close miking (try stopping a
vocalist) and proximity effect it overloads the transformer and gives that
gutless grungey sound.

I've been tempted to mod one to bypass the TX.

In fact there's a little known SM47 that has no transformer. It looks
virtually identical to the 57 and to my ears sounds so much sweeter. I have
one somewhere, one of only 2 US mics I own. The other is EV.


They seems to have the same Rocky Mountain freq responses that I loathe
with the SMs, so comments ?
Yeah, they sound pretty much similar, just a bit brighter.

Brighter sounds good esp the way so many 'engineers' mix to phone line
quality these days.


The main difference is that the Betas are claimed to be supercardiod.
A tighter pattern couldn't hurt but the SM's are so wide that,
well ...

Supercardioids can be a problem I've noticed. Not least with monitors where
the pickup pattern just hits the wrong spot.

Graham

I was in a band in the early 1970s that had a variation of the Shure 545
known as the DY45G. It had no transformer. The 545 was (I think) the
predecessor to the SM57, or the consumer version, or something. The
DY45G had a brushed nickel body and a 4-pin connector with a screw-on
ring for retention, if I recall correctly.

John Hardy

[Eeyore]

John Hardy wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Supercardioids can be a problem I've noticed. Not least with monitors where
the pickup pattern just hits the wrong spot.

I was in a band in the early 1970s that had a variation of the Shure 545
known as the DY45G. It had no transformer. The 545 was (I think) the
predecessor to the SM57, or the consumer version, or something. The
DY45G had a brushed nickel body and a 4-pin connector with a screw-on
ring for retention, if I recall correctly.

I vaguely recall replacing the capsule in a Shure that sounds very like that. Was
it the 'Unidyne' ?

I can't say I was much impressed by the sound or its fragility.

Graham

[Eeyore]

John Hardy wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Supercardioids can be a problem I've noticed. Not least with monitors where
the pickup pattern just hits the wrong spot.

I was in a band in the early 1970s that had a variation of the Shure 545
known as the DY45G. It had no transformer. The 545 was (I think) the
predecessor to the SM57, or the consumer version, or something. The
DY45G had a brushed nickel body and a 4-pin connector with a screw-on
ring for retention, if I recall correctly.

Clever use of Google yields results. I had to use a cached page to get there
though..
http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Unidyne-...:B:SRCH:US:101

Looks like 3 pins. I think the 4 pin models were dual impedance.

Graham