R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => Budget? Budget? We Don't Got No Steekin' Budjet => Topic started by: bilco on July 12, 2006, 12:25:49 AM

Title: Something About 57s
Post by: bilco on July 12, 2006, 12:25:49 AM
After I got my RNP I found that for my voice the SM57 through the RNP is about as good as I've ever heard my voice sound anywhere.

I have struggled with getting my Martin Shenandoah to sound good with an SM81 and the RNP.  Solid top, but laminate sides and back, so it's not the nicest sounding Martin, but it sounds good just sitting around picking.  I can't get it with the SM81.  Moving the mic around to a variety of positions has resulted in alternately boxy, honky, jangly, harsh and just plain ugly tones.  Where is the silky sheen that I hear in the kitchen???

So out of desperation I plugged in the SM57 and although it's not perfect, it is actually closer to what I want than the condenser.  About 6" away just where the neck meets the body sounds pretty good.  Somehow that mic is taming the edgy tones I hear, kind of mellowing out the harsh overtones and it has kind of a compressed sound to it.  I may have to try two 57s in an X/Y pattern and see how that sounds.  

I am puzzled by this.  How often do any of you actually end up using a dynamic to mic an acoustic instrument?

Thanks,
bilco
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: wwittman on July 12, 2006, 01:53:37 AM
Is a bass drum an acoustic "instrument"?

because if not, then the answer for me is "almost never" if you mean "dynamic" in the commonly used way to mean only moving-coil dynamics.

On the other hand, I use ribbon mics (which are dynamic) on lots of things from time to time.

But i must admit that 85% of the time I use condensers.

Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: maxim on July 12, 2006, 02:25:10 AM
57 on acoustic gtr is not unheard of, especially, if it's a supporting instrument

it kinda makes it sound "rocky"
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Vertigo on July 12, 2006, 11:06:14 AM
See - I've always said there was something special about the '57/RNP combo Wink

I use a D19c (dynamic) on acoustic guitar all the time. If I need a "big wide" acoustic sound I'll add in an SDC on the fretboard and an LDC "over the shoulder". I've used the RNP for these and gotten great results, but this is really dependent on the frequency response of the mic and the tone of the instrument. The RNP is aggressive in the upper mids, which is generally perfect for vocals, but can be unflattering on a lot of sources. If changing placement isn't working then you'll need to try another mic or pre.

If the '57 sounds good then go with it Smile

-Lance

Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Michael Nielsen on July 23, 2006, 01:57:31 AM
I was working with a singer...we tried 4 different mics on him, none sounded good (he had a particularly nasal, reedy voice).  So I put up a 57 for a scratch vocal, and bam! he sounded good on a mic for the first time!  

On another note, I keep reading that Danial Lanois uses 58's on U2's acoustic guitars.  Wouldn't be my first choice, but sounds good on there records.
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: hargerst on July 23, 2006, 11:48:31 AM
A lot of people ask "which mic is best for this or that?", when what they're really asking is "which mic is most flattering for a particular voice or instrument?".  And that's unanswerable, except for, "It depends".

I've used horrible mics (that have harsh high end peaks) to record female singers and they worked great, because their particular voices didn't excite those peaks.  

Many Martin D28's generate weird overtones that aren't in the chord, and some mics just make those notes stand out like a sore thumb.  Again, it depends.

Often, it will require switching to another mic, but equally often, a slight placement change will solve the problem.  I've said it at least a hundred times in various forums:

"Mic placement is often more important than mic selection."
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: compasspnt on July 23, 2006, 12:29:53 PM
hargerst wrote on Sun, 23 July 2006 11:48




"Mic placement is often more important than mic selection."


Crochet this in a curly flowery font onto a wall placque.

Hang behind your console, should you have one.

Of course, that's assuming a decent mic to start with.
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: bilco on July 23, 2006, 06:03:57 PM
hargerst wrote on Sun, 23 July 2006 10:48



Many Martin D28's generate weird overtones that aren't in the chord, and some mics just make those notes stand out like a sore thumb.  Again, it depends.

"Mic placement is often more important than mic selection."


....and I am still experimenting and not getting too far...

On this Martin D2832 Shenandoah:

Flattering = light gauge strings/SM57/Behringer Board/Unbalanced cables/16 bit PTLE session

Unflattering in a BIG way = medium gauge strings/SM81/RNP/
Balanced cables/24 bit PTLE session

...so it SURE isn't about throwing money at it....

I hadn't even read the big mic thread when I recorded the scratch tracks that are flattering.  I didn't have a clue about mic placement.....  

I'll try light strings again.  Maybe the mediums are bringing out the worst attributes of the laminate back and sides.  Then I guess I'll try a Sennheiser 441 and see if reducing the room in the equation helps any.  

By God, when I DO find it, I'm stickin' with it!

I dunno,
bilco
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: hargerst on July 23, 2006, 08:52:08 PM
bilco,

Sorry, I tried to make it to your Friday gig in Austin.  Here's what happened:

Left Friday morning, 10AM, for Austin.  Got about a mile away from the house and noticed no cold air coming out of the AC.  Went to the shop that put in the new AC for a check up; they found a leaking fitting, replaced it, and refilled the Freon.

While they were checking the system with the engine running, they found a radiator seam leak.  It needed a new radiator (located about 45 miles away).  By the time we got out of there on our way to Austin, it was around 3:30.  

Figured we'd make some time on the highway, but discovered the AC only worked at around 55 mph; above that, the cold air (and the blower) shut off.

We finally hit Austin around 9:30 PM, shot to shit.

And that's why we didn't get to your gig, but we intended to.
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: bilco on July 23, 2006, 10:11:24 PM
Harvey, sorry about your AC ordeal - no fun in July.  You didn't miss much and we are there EVERY Friday if you're ever in town again.  The guitar player works at South Austin Music and I didn't know it till after the fact, but he was at NAMM on Friday and Sunday.

Take care,
bilco
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: compasspnt on July 23, 2006, 11:18:10 PM

Harvey, that's the oldest excuse in the book!
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Fibes on July 23, 2006, 11:24:11 PM
compasspnt wrote on Sun, 23 July 2006 23:18


Harvey, that's the oldest excuse in the book!




"Officer he smelled of alcohol because he had to fill his 68 VW bug with coolant after it overheated.
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: wwittman on July 23, 2006, 11:46:37 PM
compasspnt wrote on Sun, 23 July 2006 12:29



Of course, that's assuming a decent mic to start with.




which would exclude the SM-57 <g>
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: hargerst on July 24, 2006, 12:51:03 AM
compasspnt wrote on Sun, 23 July 2006 22:18


Harvey, that's the oldest excuse in the book!


Terry, the trip there was nothing, compared to the trip back.  The AC quit working completely, and we drove back with the windows wide open, in 105
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Teddy G. on July 24, 2006, 08:03:10 AM
So, the 57, then, sounds "better" because of what it's NOT picking up.....? Hummm.....? Makes sense!

TG
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: compasspnt on July 24, 2006, 08:57:49 AM

Yes, Heaven forbid that a microphone should pick up everything.
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: bilco on July 24, 2006, 11:06:14 AM
I almost posted something I would have regretted..... I learned the hard way at work to sit on e-mails written when pissed for at least 24 hours.....

I'm gonna attribute my bad mood to diverticulitis and go back to bed now.

.....and in spite of what I don't know yet, I WILL get a good sound out of that #$^**#%@ D2832!  

......or I'll sell all of it and record at Harvey's.....

bilco
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Fibes on July 24, 2006, 11:57:13 AM
bilco wrote on Mon, 24 July 2006 11:06

I almost posted something I would have regretted..... I learned the hard way at work to sit on e-mails written when pissed for at least 24 hours.....

I'm gonna attribute my bad mood to diverticulitis and go back to bed now.

.....and in spite of what I don't know yet, I WILL get a good sound out of that #$^**#%@ D2832!  

......or I'll sell all of it and record at Harvey's.....

bilco


I like 57s for rock tracks sometimes, other times I like an SM2, or Bova Balls, or KM 84s, or in some cases 4033s. Dynamics can sometime be the ticket especially when compared to condesers that are more marketing than mic.

Also, keep in mind that the room plays an enormous role in micing acoustics and that trwating, not treating, placing the player and all that needs to be handled. FWIW since my room has been redone i have had to totally reinvent my standard go to procedures although i have the same mics, pres, compressors and guitars. Change is good.
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: hargerst on July 24, 2006, 12:35:22 PM
bilco wrote on Mon, 24 July 2006 10:06

.....and in spite of what I don't know yet, I WILL get a good sound out of that #$^**#%@ D2832!

bilco

Or, you can do what the guy with the D28 (that I recorded) did; just accept the guitar for what it is and record it, weird overtones and all.
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Teddy G. on July 24, 2006, 01:58:26 PM
Another 57 question. There are several Shures with the "57" on them now(Beta, whatever..?), do any of the numbers or "extra" names on any of them mean "now made in China"? Are any of the mics still made in the USA? I know with community speakers the MVP2's, the "2" must mean "gone 2 China", that's where they're now made(Should have guessed from their too low price.). Yes, they sound fine, no nothing against China(Nice job, worked well - I need more power to push them!), but I bought them BECAUSE they were made about 60 miles from me in Chester, PA -- uh-uh - "made in china"... If I hadn't been starting 3 weeks worth of gigs in two days after I got them I would have loaded them in my pickup and taken them down to Chester and thrown them through their front doors(I hadn't been so absolutely, insanely mad in a long time.). Say-La-vee... Anyway, are the Shures still made in the US?

TG
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: bilco on July 24, 2006, 05:00:39 PM
Lo siento amigo, pero yo pienso que ellos ahora son hechos en M
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Frob on July 24, 2006, 05:04:43 PM
as far as i know the SM57 is still maide in USA. i would expect taht the electronics in the betas are mading in china, but i doubt the whole mic is. then there are the other new cheap 57s, thouse i expect are made in china. i do not know for shure so dont quote me on this.

as for the 57, i love the 57 on most sources, vocals included. if some one knows how to work a 58 then chanves are they will shine on a 57. i love my 57s and you would have to pry them from my cold dead hands.


as to micing they acoustic try this. get a reflective corner, face it. move in untill you think it sounds good. then put the mic right over your shoulder. and point it at a wall, you will have to mover the mic around untill you find the right spot. this is an old blues methode, it wont sound crystal but it will be interesting.
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: wwittman on July 25, 2006, 01:48:05 AM
Teddy G. wrote on Mon, 24 July 2006 08:03

So, the 57, then, sounds "better" because of what it's NOT picking up.....? Hummm.....?
TG


no, the 57 sounds "better" because either:
a) you heard 'everyone' uses them on ____, or
b) you have not tried another microphone in a direct comparison...

or both.
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: McAllister on July 25, 2006, 09:15:17 AM
The 57 sounds good to me because:
    1) for years and years it was the only mic I had (w/ my Tascam 234 4-track). So I got very used to how it sounds.
    2) it's been used so long on snares and guitar amps, that it's part of my sub-conscious; there is a "rightness" to the sound.

That said, I find I am using mine less and less often.

M
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Fibes on July 25, 2006, 10:00:12 AM
wwittman wrote on Tue, 25 July 2006 01:48

Teddy G. wrote on Mon, 24 July 2006 08:03

So, the 57, then, sounds "better" because of what it's NOT picking up.....? Hummm.....?
TG


no, the 57 sounds "better" because either:
a) you heard 'everyone' uses them on ____, or
b) you have not tried another microphone in a direct comparison...

or both.


William is on a crusade and while he's at it I want to know what he uses for a pad on his condensers on loud sources.


Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: bilco on July 26, 2006, 12:38:06 AM
Lessons learned tonight about recording my D28 Shenandoah:

All of these were done using the RNP.  I did try the Behringer ADA8000 and it wasn't too bad, just unremarkable.

The MD441 sounds a LOT better than the SM81, 12th fret, 6" out, new medium strings. I kicked in the presence boost and dialed the bass rolloff to 1 click from M.  Nice high end, the harsh overtones are actually gone. It sure is a tight pattern though, like looking at something through a tube from a paper towel roll.

I STILL like the way the SM57 sounds at the 12th fret, although it's not what I was searching for.

Curious to see what 2 57s would sound like, I took the windscreen off of my battle scarred 15 year old SM58 and set it up with the SM57 in an X/Y pattern.  The 58 is tired and needs more gain, but it really sounded good to me, in a garage band, home studio kind of way.  Razz

I needed an excuse to get another 57 anyway so I have one for snare and one for guitar cab when I am recording our band live.  SM57 haters, make me a deal!!

The SM81 captures that harsh ringing bunch of overtones when the guitar is soloed. I don't know why I got this mic for recording my acoustic. It did work pretty well on the Martin live the other night though, way better than the builtin 1st generation Thinline piezo.

When I bring up the vocal, bass and drum tracks, ALL of the acoustic tracks sound okay, just different.  So I started listening from the point of view of which one of these is getting in the way of the vocal the least.  The answer was the X/Y 57s, because the vocal is centered between them.  If I could only afford a pair of MD441s.....

If I shouldn't post what is child's play to everyone else, let me know and I'll stop.  I am just trying to start practicing some of what I read in the big mic thread and I appreciate any guidance given.  

Maybe some parametric EQ would make all of these experiments sound about the same, but I am trying to go with the best placement and no EQ going in.  Somebody else is going to have to help me mix this mess and I don't want them having to undo a bunch of bad EQ applied to the basic tracks.  

I will try the idea of playing into a corner tomorrow with a mic over the shoulder.  That's gotta be different!


Thanks,
Bill
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: wwittman on July 26, 2006, 02:41:27 AM
Fibes wrote on Tue, 25 July 2006 10:00



William is on a crusade and while he's at it I want to know what he uses for a pad on his condensers on loud sources.





the one built in to the mic
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Joe Black on July 26, 2006, 07:45:03 AM
bilco wrote on Wed, 26 July 2006 00:38


I will try the idea of playing into a corner tomorrow with a mic over the shoulder.  That's gotta be different!


Thanks,
Bill



I use the mic over the shoulder when I'm looking for a big acoustic sound, though I've never sat in the corner while doing it. My mic there is a Rode K2. When you try this, you might also stick the mic you liked on the fret board on the fret board and see how they sound together.
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Fibes on July 26, 2006, 10:27:20 AM
wwittman wrote on Wed, 26 July 2006 02:41

Fibes wrote on Tue, 25 July 2006 10:00



William is on a crusade and while he's at it I want to know what he uses for a pad on his condensers on loud sources.





the one built in to the mic


That narrows it down...

Heh.

Miles wants a 451, I want an 84.
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Frob on July 26, 2006, 05:03:42 PM
honestly i would take just about any mic, i have stoped buying equipment to complete projects. at some point you just have press recored and live with what comes out the other end as the best you could do at the time.


hargerst wrote on Mon, 24 July 2006 09:35


Or, you can do what the guy with the D28 (that I recorded) did; just accept the guitar for what it is and record it, weird overtones and all.


Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: bilco on July 27, 2006, 06:03:16 PM
Frob wrote on Wed, 26 July 2006 16:03

honestly i would take just about any mic, i have stoped buying equipment to complete projects. at some point you just have press recored and live with what comes out the other end as the best you could do at the time.

That is exactly what I need to hear.  I have been stuck in the "as soon as I get a __________, THEN I will record the song" because I guess I want to get it right the first time and I hate being new and not good at something.  I keep falling into the trap of thinking the gear is the answer.....

Must remember....placement, not the mic, placement, not the mic

I got another 57 today.  I have come to the conclusion that a simple man needs a simple mic and it is easier to work within the limitations of this mic and try to get the best placement with a simple tool than it is to try to figure out something with all kinds of rolloff and boost switches and then add placement into the mix of things to tweak.  Start simple and learn and record RIGHT now.  The perfectionism thing is really hard to let go of though.....

I don't pretend that it's going to sound like something recorded in a real studio, but I am comforted by the fact that when asked what his favorite mic was in a Mojo Pie interview, Fletcher wrote, "This is really pretty easy. My favorite microphone ever made is the Shure SM57. It's rarely ever "genius" but it never ever totally sucks. You can point one in the general direction of a sound and you'll get a pretty decent representation of that sound that can be recorded and pounded to death later."

That's good enough for me!
Bill Colbert, who is now leaving to actually &%#@%^ record something
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: jetbase on July 27, 2006, 09:29:23 PM
the other day i had, for two guitarists, two classic marshall amps & cabs in a tight sounding room. i put a u87 + sm57 on one & a u89 + sm57 on the other. result was a classic hard rock sound without any effort, which is just what the project required.

while it's not my favourite mic in terms of sound, i will go out on a limb and say it's the greatest mic ever made. i've never, ever had a problem with one &, if it's not the exact right mic to use for an application it can most times get you in the ball park. maybe less useful if you have an amazing mic collection, but when someone asks me what mic to buy i'd tell 'em a 57 over an nt1 any day.
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: wwittman on July 28, 2006, 05:35:30 PM
KM-84
U-87
UM70s
D224e
RE20
SM-7

there is not a SINGLE thing that these wouldn't 'work' on at least acceptably...

and in no case would a 57 be superior
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Bobro on July 29, 2006, 06:36:32 AM
It's just an opinion but in my limited experience everything that's said about the SM57 actually applies to the 421 (plus the Sennheiser is obviously the model for the original Star Trek phaser gun). So the MD 421 gets my vote for the no-budget/desert-island mic.

Of course the 421 doesn't have the particular size and shape of an SM57, making it far less prone to acquiring an exceptionally "colorful past" in the hands of the sexually over-enthused musician or engineer.

-Bobro
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Frob on July 31, 2006, 04:20:07 AM
jetbase wrote on Thu, 27 July 2006 18:29

while it's not my favourite mic in terms of sound, i will go out on a limb and say it's the greatest mic ever made. i've never, ever had a problem with one &, if it's not the exact right mic to use for an application it can most times get you in the ball park. maybe less useful if you have an amazing mic collection, but when someone asks me what mic to buy i'd tell 'em a 57 over an nt1 any day.


i dont know if truer words can be said with one edit. i always recommend the sm57 if its there first mic or they dont own one

Quote:


KM-84
U-87
UM70s
D224e
RE20
SM-7


only one problem with this statement, this is the budget forum and the cheapest mic on this list is US$150 used. that is almost twice as much as the price of a new sm57. and we are recommending it with the disclaimer that while it is not the best mic in every situation it is a mic that will work. i am not saying that any of these would not be better then an sm57 in almost any situation, in fact if you do have the luxury of own all of those mics in enough quantity to mic a full drum set then i would never really expect you to use an sm57. however since you do own an sm57, and dont own any of the a fore mentioned mics, then there is nothing wrong with using an sm57.
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Ironklad Audio on August 12, 2006, 02:18:52 PM
i saw a post a replies back stating that someone thought the SM57 was still produced in the USA

unfortunately, they're now being made in mexico from what i understand
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: wwittman on August 12, 2006, 05:40:20 PM
Frob wrote on Mon, 31 July 2006 04:20

jetbase wrote on Thu, 27 July 2006 18:29

while it's not my favourite mic in terms of sound, i will go out on a limb and say it's the greatest mic ever made. i've never, ever had a problem with one &, if it's not the exact right mic to use for an application it can most times get you in the ball park. maybe less useful if you have an amazing mic collection, but when someone asks me what mic to buy i'd tell 'em a 57 over an nt1 any day.


i dont know if truer words can be said with one edit. i always recommend the sm57 if its there first mic or they dont own one

Quote:


KM-84
U-87
UM70s
D224e
RE20
SM-7


only one problem with this statement, this is the budget forum and the cheapest mic on this list is US$150 used. that is almost twice as much as the price of a new sm57. and we are recommending it with the disclaimer that while it is not the best mic in every situation it is a mic that will work. i am not saying that any of these would not be better then an sm57 in almost any situation, in fact if you do have the luxury of own all of those mics in enough quantity to mic a full drum set then i would never really expect you to use an sm57. however since you do own an sm57, and dont own any of the a fore mentioned mics, then there is nothing wrong with using an sm57.


sorry for the extensive re-quote... but if you read the first quote above, it says nothing of price.
it says: " it's the greatest mic ever made."

the greatest $90 mic ever made would be a different contest.

FWIW I'd find a used AKG D1000e for $40 or so over an SM-57 on  just about anything.
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: djwayne on August 12, 2006, 07:32:27 PM
[quote

Of course the 421 doesn't have the particular size and shape of an SM57, making it far less prone to acquiring an exceptionally "colorful past" in the hands of the sexually over-enthused musician or engineer.

-Bobro[/quote]


Another good reason never to buy used mics !!
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Tomas Danko on August 12, 2006, 07:44:58 PM
[quote title=djwayne wrote on Sun, 13 August 2006 00:32][quote

Of course the 421 doesn't have the particular size and shape of an SM57, making it far less prone to acquiring an exceptionally "colorful past" in the hands of the sexually over-enthused musician or engineer.

-Bobro[/quote]


Another good reason never to buy used mics !![/quote]

You'd be surprised...
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: jetbase on August 13, 2006, 07:53:33 PM
wwittman wrote on Sun, 13 August 2006 07:40

 
sorry for the extensive re-quote... but if you read the first quote above, it says nothing of price.
it says: " it's the greatest mic ever made."

the greatest $90 mic ever made would be a different contest.

FWIW I'd find a used AKG D1000e for $40 or so over an SM-57 on  just about anything.



yes, but it says nothing of sound quality either. the greatest sounding mic ever made would also be a different contest. but anyway, it's not a contest, just my opinion (which happens to be right... in my opinion).  Razz
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Ironklad Audio on August 14, 2006, 03:16:10 AM
yea...althought i hate to admit it, i'd have to also agree that the sm-57 is the "greatest" mic ever made, due to the fact that ANYBODY can throw down $90, and have a microphone that will work on damn near any source you throw at it
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Vertigo on August 14, 2006, 03:07:58 PM
William, don't be such a hater Wink

The '57 has a "character". If you like it - use it, if you don't, then use something else. Personally, I agree with the opinion that the '57 never really "sucks".

They're cheap, they sound "good" on just about any source, and you could run them over with a truck without damaging them. I wouldn't feel inconvenienced in the slightest if I ever had to do a session without one, but I do like to use them on certain sources here and there. I find them to be right on the money when an aggressive, mid-hyped, lo-fi sound is what I'm looking for.

Oh, and they're hella fun to modify. I'm working on a modification to one now that I'm sure William will love...

-Lance
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: jdier on August 18, 2006, 08:20:04 PM
When I only had 2 57's and not much else I mic'ed acoustic with them.  One at a 45 degree angle down from the sound hole (like in a  kick drum stand pointing up towards the sound hole when I was sitting down strumming) and the other one about a foot away from the 12th fret pointed a little towards the headstock, but more like towards the 10th fret.

It sounded really nice.

I have also put them over my left and right shoulder pointing down at the guitar.

It is tough to go too horribly wrong with SM57's
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: jdier on August 18, 2006, 08:21:39 PM
Ironklad Audio wrote on Sat, 12 August 2006 19:18

i saw a post a replies back stating that someone thought the SM57 was still produced in the USA

unfortunately, they're now being made in mexico from what i understand



Mexico is better than China.
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Jeff Gazdacko on August 22, 2006, 06:07:35 PM
Vertigo wrote on Mon, 14 August 2006 15:07


They're cheap, they sound "good" on just about any source, and you could run them over with a truck without damaging them.



Have you ever ran over one with a truck? I haven't tried that before... but I've seen way too many SM57's with cracked/broken plastic windscreens to allow them to qualify as being durable let alone the "greatest mic ever".  If a hit from a drummer could break them I'd doubt an sm57 would survive being run over by a truck.

In fact I refuse to ever buy an SM57 due to the "cheep" feeling of the plastic windscreen.   There are plenty of other options out there that in my opinion sound better and are far more durable.

-Jeff
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Frob on August 23, 2006, 04:21:35 PM
Jeff Gazdacko wrote on Tue, 22 August 2006 15:07

Vertigo wrote on Mon, 14 August 2006 15:07


They're cheap, they sound "good" on just about any source, and you could run them over with a truck without damaging them.



Have you ever ran over one with a truck? I haven't tried that before... but I've seen way too many SM57's with cracked/broken plastic windscreens to allow them to qualify as being durable let alone the "greatest mic ever".  If a hit from a drummer could break them I'd doubt an sm57 would survive being run over by a truck.

In fact I refuse to ever buy an SM57 due to the "cheep" feeling of the plastic windscreen.   There are plenty of other options out there that in my opinion sound better and are far more durable.

-Jeff




i dont think that i have ever seen one with a broken wind screen. also i would not want to meet a drummer, big enugh to break an sm57, in a dark ally.

and yes i have seen one get run over by a truck and it did survive. hell its a solid tube filled with glue with an opening on one end for the element and an xlr on the other.
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Fig on August 23, 2006, 05:50:08 PM
jdier wrote on Fri, 18 August 2006 19:21

Ironklad Audio wrote on Sat, 12 August 2006 19:18

i saw a post a replies back stating that someone thought the SM57 was still produced in the USA

unfortunately, they're now being made in mexico from what i understand



Mexico is better than China.



Unless you are craving an egroll. Rolling Eyes

SM57s are "Assembled in Mexico" - NTTAWWT.

Regarding rugged and reliable (Shure's claim to fame) - I would challenge ANY manufacturers' handheld mic to survive the torture tests we put ALL of our microphones through (even the studio mics).

Warm analog regards,

Fig
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Ironklad Audio on August 24, 2006, 11:35:18 PM
$5 says the audix i5 could take more of a beating than a 57...

but seriously, who cares? tell the damn drummer ahead of time not to hit your mics, or he'll have it up his ass for the rest of the session
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Vertigo on August 26, 2006, 01:55:24 PM
I guess the plastic is less delicate than the rest of the mic (although I've never actually seen the windscreen on a 57 break), but it's hardly an Achilles heel. The basket underneath is quite sturdy - you'd have a hard time damaging the capsule, even with the hardest hitting of drummers. And I don't know if anyone here has ever tried drilling through the body of a '57, but I can personally tell you it's TOUGH...

-Lance
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: compasspnt on August 26, 2006, 03:44:44 PM
Vertigo wrote on Sat, 26 August 2006 13:55


I don't know if anyone here has ever tried drilling through the body of a '57, but I can personally tell you it's TOUGH...



I have, and it is!
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: thedoc on August 27, 2006, 01:08:34 AM
"plus the Sennheiser is obviously the model for the original Star Trek phaser gun). "

So this explains why whenever a phaser is set to stun, the low end rolls off.
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Frob on August 28, 2006, 02:23:16 AM
Ironklad Audio wrote on Thu, 24 August 2006 20:35

$5 says the audix i5 could take more of a beating than a 57...

but seriously, who cares? tell the damn drummer ahead of time not to hit your mics, or he'll have it up his ass for the rest of the session



i dont think that they really try to break mics it just sort of happens.
Title: Re: Something About 57s
Post by: Fig on August 29, 2006, 04:41:07 PM
Frob wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 01:23

Ironklad Audio wrote on Thu, 24 August 2006 20:35

$5 says the audix i5 could take more of a beating than a 57...

but seriously, who cares? tell the damn drummer ahead of time not to hit your mics, or he'll have it up his ass for the rest of the session



i dont think that they really try to break mics it just sort of happens.



I'll agree, but they SHOULD be hitting the drums instead. Rolling Eyes

Regarding the bet, there's more to "rugged and reliable" than who can take the hardest hit.  There is temperature fluctuations - both in operation and in storage, there is moisture and humidity, vibration, and many others.  Drop tests are merely that, environmentals are the real sadists.

Next time I see an i5 around the plant, I'll put it through the temperature test:  the one that toggles between -(20) degrees F to 165 degrees F.  If its diaphragm doesn't become unglued, I'll put it in the 100% humidity tank - pretty much guaranteed to destroy most capsules.  Those Quality Assurance guys and gals really love their jobs!

You can make the check out to Thom Fiegle.

Osci-later,

Fig