This song was recorded with only sm 57's on the drums. I'd say they had a bit of success with it.
Hall & Oates-Sara Smile - YouTube
Can you record a drum kit entirely with Shure SM57 mics? Barry Rudolph can.
Recording: In The Studio: The “Daryl Hall and John Oates” Album & The $300 Drum Sound - Pro Sound Web
yes, but not just one.
and they were going for 'old school' sound.....
probably in a nice studio, not a garage.
just a complete different scenario.
Of course it's not the same scenario. But it goes to show that what one person would call the "wrong tool" is a good enough tool for someone else to make a huge hit record with. If it really was the wrong tool, using more than one wouldn't make it any better. As far as going for a retro sound, even with the best mic in the world, if you're only using one mic, you better hope you're not going for a "modern" sound, because you won't get a modern drum sound with one mic on a recording no matter what mic you use.
Did the OP mention anything about not going for a retro sound? I must have missed that one. I got the part about using a cassette deck, though. That sounds pretty retro to me.
The OP was talking about using one mic. That means capturing the whole kit, ambience and everything, with one microphone. That's patently NOT what that sound engineer did on the Hall and Oats record. He used many microphones, close-micing and ambient micing under a strictly-controlled acoustic canopy.
Very well said and I agree 100%. In a room and in that situation, I'm pretty sure you'll get better results with a 57 than you will with a condenser picking up that "room". Like I said, and Bobby reiterated, with one mic going into a cassette deck, you're hopefully going for "retro", because you ain't going to get "modern" no matter what mic you use.As everyone has said, you won't get anything like the classic "rock" drum sound or even a "jazz" drum sound with a single mic--typically the minimum is 3 or 4 with the sky being the limit at the other end of the scale.
However, given what you have, this would be an interesting exercise in listening/mic placement. I'd start with the mic slightly above and in front of the kit (far enough away that you can pick up the whole thing with your directional mic). Then I'd experiment with very small changes in position and aiming to adjust the balance among all the different parts of the kit for the best compromise.
It'll never be perfect or even good but you'll be surprised at the differences small movement will make.
Right. And he used SM57's. If it was the "wrong tool", it wouldn't have mattered how many he used, it simple wouldn't have worked. He also used 57's as overheads. The fact that it was a strictly-controlled acoustic canopy is irrelevant because, even with the best mic in the world, using one mic in an echo-y garage would sound bad. So, the problem here is less about the 57 than it is about using one mic in a garage into a cassette deck, no matter what mic we're talking about.
Thick? Why? Because I disagree with you? Get your head out of your ass, you're being a little baby.But it patently IS the wrong tool for a single, ambient-micing situation. Why are you acting so thick? At the very least the 57 needs to be close-micd to make use of the proximity effect. SM57s at a distance sound pretty rubbish. The SM57 in the Hall and Oates project was made to work by mostly close-micing, using lots of SM57s, so your point about more not being better is absolutely wrong. What you're doing, in effect, is saying that a smoothing plane is not crap for hammering in nails, by giving the example of somebody using ten of them to take neat little shavings off a piece of wood.
Using one mic on drums is crap no matter what mic it is.