GLS Audio ES-57 vs. Shure SM57 (on Guitar) Mic A/B Test - Video and WAV pics

GLS Audio ES-57 or Shure SM57 (on Guitar)?

  • GLS Audio ES-57

    Votes: 1 50.0%

  • Shure SM57

    Votes: 1 50.0%
  • Total voters
    2
David Cooke said:
Saying no offense doesn't make anything less offensive.

Did you listen to my files? I think they speak for themselves. You are making this political mj. It shouldn't be this should be about the mic. He has noted that his test had some discrepancies as would any test. My test has variables too as does any test even in an anechoic chamber. I demonstarted exactly the problem with these mics. This isn't about who is right or wrong if my test had come
Out different and I was wrong I would
own up but it didn't it sounded just the way I remember. I've used this mic in
Plenty of different acoustic enviorments with many different musicians and pres/converters/monitors always the same conclusion. The mic's whole marketing campaign is that its like the sm57 "or better" thats what they say.. So how come everyone else can state their subjective opinion but we can't have one because its negative? Or because we are n00bs to
The forum? I guess someone should tell chris lord alge or andy sneap their opinions are worthless because they don't post on HR.com. What about rob norman?? You are trolling I don't care who you are what you're doing is trolling. People have stated his test was flawed you came in and called it a "newb jerk circle" or whatever.

This aristocratic behavior is only hindering the potential future of this forum. What are you trying to do keep people from contributing to the community? It sure as heck seems that way.

Seriously if what you're saying is true then why do we even have equipment forums. Whats the point if someones happy with the built in mic on their laptop? I demonstrated what I don't like about the mic I was hoping someone else would demonstrate what they do like about the mic. It bothers me how political you make this. It makes no sense there are brilliant people on this forum like greg, rami and jimmy but even they'll probably admit occasionally they are wrong. What are we supposed to do as noobs, sit quietly or just agree with everything anyone says? If some higher up here said to rub peanut butter all over your drums to make them sound better would you do it? Everyone should trust their ears and not blindly follow what you me or anyone else says. You have no problems with a noob when they agree with you.
Click to expand...

I listened to the files last night. On the amped guitar tracks, I did prefer the ES, but can understand how some might prefer the SM. As already mentioned, for a truly equal test, a track should have been recorded via DI, then re-amped.
On the snare, no doubt the SM is better suited, but I don't record drums myself. ;)

i won't take back my original comments (post #25) - because look at the facts: In the first 24 posts in this thread, gregoryg did 12 of them and you did 5. 17/24 = 70.8%. Both of you recently joined this forum, have not introduced yourselves as studio professionals and start this back-and-forth back-slapping.
 
mjbphotos said:
I listened to the files last night. On the amped guitar tracks, I did prefer the ES, but can understand how some might prefer the SM. As already mentioned, for a truly equal test, a track should have been recorded via DI, then re-amped.
On the snare, no doubt the SM is better suited, but I don't record drums myself. ;)

i won't take back my original comments (post #25) - because look at the facts: In the first 24 posts in this thread, gregoryg did 12 of them and you did 5. 17/24 = 70.8%. Both of you recently joined this forum, have not introduced yourselves as studio professionals and start this back-and-forth back-slapping.
Click to expand...

I don't get the studio professional thing like I said before does this mean Rod Norman would have had more
Credibility didn't he introduce himself as such? Or how about justin beiber hes a "studio professional?" I guess we'll have to agree to disagree I don't believe I participated in "slap-backing" just because I agree with the op and felt the need to explain myself but I may not understand what you mean by that completely anyways. I'm not a very good writer and I've been told I'm blunt so if I came off harsh I apologize. I've posted my results and explained them it was mostly a clinical experiment but did have imo enough science to back up my claim. I hope there is no hard feelings here. I still feel your comment was inappropriate and don't see how it is a contribution to the thread. just personally haven't seen anyone show me how well this mic works in a mix so I decided to post a sample of my results. (Money where my mouth is). I haven't heard any REALLY good sounding recordings with this mic so I'm so puzzled as to why I'm being treated like a conspiracy theorist here. We've all heard what an sm57 is capable of And seeing
as how most people here are trying to
troubleshoot problems with their recordings I think its a good idea to demonstrate some of the potential flaws of this mic. I was hoping my posts would merit some kind of respect from this forum or
a cookie or something. All joking aside I would love to be proven wrong but all I ever see is hear-say with this mic (all talk)
 
Last edited:
You guys could have skipped all of this bullshit if you had bought an MD-421 instead.
 
I have four SM57s and currently don't have a need for a fifth, although I've proven (to myself) the GLS ES-57 isn't gonna fill that spot even if I wanted it to, so next up: it is getting modded!

I guess, based on the joy of this thread, I got more than my $29 worth out of it! :D
 
arcaxis said:
Anyone know if the GLS Audio ES-57 has a transformer like the SM57? And are they any frequency graphs to be found anywhere for the ES-57?
Click to expand...


If you are interested I will gladly mail you one of my es-57 for keeps.

There used to be some IDK what happened to them and at the time I wasn't educated enough to even verify the testing lab's credit. Could have been another foambymail type incident. Not accusing them just saying its possible.
 
Interesting if it has a neodymium magnet then it should be more comparable to a beta 57 then right? I mean tech wise.

At the risk of pissing more people off by bumping this thread I think I'm going to shoot this out against my beta57 soon.
 
arcaxis said:
Usually neodymium magnet mics have a hot output. I'm not sure how the -72db@1000hz of the ES-57 compares to the SM57's output of -56dbv/PA. Did the ES-57 seem to need more gain than the SM57? An SM7b has a rated sensitivity of -59dbv/PA and needs a butt load of gain, so -72db is a strange number.
Click to expand...

Nope. They were recorded with identical settings at the exact same time (this is why the D/I argument on this thread is moot, unless we open the spacing can of worms back up, but whatever).

The test is confusing because I chopped the files up and offset the recording with the recorded part proceeding repeating the part before it. HUH??? Confusing. In other words, if you listen to the video, I am playing all at once with Mic A into input 1 and Mic B into input 2 recording at identical gain settings on the preamp and outputting to the mixdown at identical 0db faders. So what you are hearing gain/level-wise is an even playing field. Identical source sound + identical preamp + identical faders = GLS mic hotter than Shure mic.
 
David Cooke said:
Interesting if it has a neodymium magnet then it should be more comparable to a beta 57 then right? I mean tech wise.

At the risk of pissing more people off by bumping this thread I think I'm going to shoot this out against my beta57 soon.
Click to expand...

Please do this. The only BETA mic I own/have ever used is the BETA52A in my kick and would love to hear these up against the SMs. Would love to do PG testing too, but don't have the need to buy any to test.

I did pick up two SM48s the other day for $34 and I am planning on putting them up against my SM58s for yet another test! I know how HR.com just loves my mic tests :)
 
gregoryg said:
Please do this. The only BETA mic I own/have ever used is the BETA52A in my kick and would love to hear these up against the SMs. Would love to do PG testing too, but don't have the need to buy any to test.

I did pick up two SM48s the other day for $34 and I am planning on putting them up against my SM58s for yet another test! I know how HR.com just loves my mic tests :)
Click to expand...

I know i sound like a shure fanboy but I also have a pg56 and pg52 if you want me to go a step further. Incidentally the pg52 works surprisingly well on floor toms when the drummer comes in with a bad sounding/old head... as for the bass drum...not so much.
 
David Cooke said:
But at what degree and couldn't you argue that the mic clip does the same? Also i mentioned stereo mic bars and xy/ortf where its doing the same thing right? Either way I think its pretty silly if someone would say that that is the reason these mics sound so different here.

And what kind of beer do they drink in Australia, I doubt my weak american pallet could handle it?
Click to expand...

ORTF, if done correctly, does not share pattern or magnetic field. The mics are either pointed away from each other at a 110 (90 for NOS) degree diffusion, or crossed (pre condenser and separated).
XY is MEANT to take two cardioid microphones and turn them into a hyper cardioid stereo capture. It's supposed to change the pattern.
And I agree, it would be silly to imply changing the pattern and field of these specific mikes is the reason they sound different.
 
Actually, I wouldn't say that XY changes the pattern. It *might* have some influence, because of the close proximity of the coincident microphones, but I don't think that this specifically creates the stereo image.

Rather, the it is the combination of the cardioid polar patterns of the mics and their alignment at 90° to each other that is responsible for the capture of the stereo image.

Also, I would expect that XY would more often be implemented with condenser mics, so there should be no significant magnetic field influences?
 
Sorry, didn't think I implied that the proximity creates the stereo image. At least I didn't mean to.
The specific 90 degree angle on XY and NOS is to help cancel phase issues if I remember right. Not sure how the 110 works, but I'm no math genius.
Anytime you point two mikes you'll get a stereo image of some sort...There are good ways and bad ways. ORTF, NOS and XY have been used for decades because they work...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top