The eternal SM57...

L

Le Basseur

New member
Hi all,
Glad I found this friendly place with so many gurus and even more acid comments :D .
My question is about the different productions of the highly-touted SM57.Most of you agree that it's a giant to consider when guitar cabs come in question and I agree with that.But...is this a thing regarding the American-produced SM57?...what about the contemporary "Made in Mexico" stuff?
I read a report on Harmony Central where a guy said something like "...the MIM stinks compared with American series".Does anybody have any comparison to make?
The point is that I'd could eventually get some old SM57's from some sound guys who got tired of them (...don't say it,I hear you...) but this is a rather risky thing (beat-up samples,etc).Besides,my Shure dealer says that almost every Shure mic under 300 Euros is a MIM,some more expensive models are being made in Canada and "the real ones" are US-made.Of course,the 57 on sale here (in Croatia) is a MIM and it's charged for about 125 Euros :mad: .
So,the main question:how do they compare,the US and Mexican? (...please,don't tell me something like "...hooties versus chilli").
The main application would be a mike-to-Yamaha AW16G for my guitarist's Fender '64 Reverb Deluxe on wich he plays through an Axon synth on channel 1 and direct guitar on channel 2.Despite any other wiring possibility I offered him,he insists on "that sound" so I must comply because we're good friends and I respect his taste. :rolleyes:
...or should I stick to the Sennheiser E609,as it was somewhat compared on another thread on the forum?
Thank you for your time,
Regards,
Le Basseur
 
Bump

joshj said:
Hooties is totally better than chilli!!!
Click to expand...
That was a deep one! :rolleyes:
Come on,folks,no one has old and new 57's?
I'm still waiting for a competent answer revealing the pros (if any..) and cons of MIM's.Is that so hard to tell?
...or:
1.The ones who could do a comparison are too lazy to write down about it.
2.The ones who could do a comparison are old enough and maybe senile :o .
3.The subject itself doesn't deserve attention because of the low cost of the mikes in question.
4.The subject itself doesn't deserve NO attention because it comes from another part of the world,other than US/Canada and Western Europe :p (some time ago,I got such an answer on another forum so I must count on that too!).
5. (.....),you name it.
Feel free to flame my post but,for God's sake,tell me what's the damn difference!
Thanks!
 
I'm not an Sm57 fan. Nope. But I do, now I have a decent console, like my very old 545D, which is USA-made. Run a quick search, mate. You will find lots of people who reckon the Mexican ones aren't as good. The answer is to go second-hand ... I scored my 545 for peanuts on ebay.
 
I have both a new 57 and the old unidyne 545 made in america from 1963. Each has its own place in my collection that I use depending on the needs of the song.
I prefer the 545 for voice and certain sources where I want a smooth response. Brian Wilson from the Beach Boys record most of his vocals in the 60s with a 545. I read in the most current EQ that he used the 545 again for his voice on hi s new SMiLE album. Pretty interesting stuff....I picked mine off of Ebay for $35...It gets more use than my $1100 U195. Check out my thread in the MP3 forum if you'd like to hear a great example of the merits of the 545 used across a full rock mix.
Secondly, the 57 has a little more pronounced high midrange bump. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing. Knowing this, I sometimes use the MIM 57 on electric guitar when I need more midrange for the track to cut through. I also prefer the 57 for vocals on a dense rock mix where I need the vox to cut through a wall of guitars. I've been known to use the 545 for verse vocals, then use the 57 for chorus vocals.

Both are important for my recording needs.
 
i scored 2 545-s off ebay and i compared them to my new style 57-s and thought they were thinner sounding and didnt have a punch to them or as much output.i try not to get caught up in who uses a mic.its the singer behind it. i remember someone commenting on using older 57-s in the studio and not getting the right drum sound. they went out and got a brand new 57 and it did the trick for them. something about the diaphrams flexing and wearing with age changes the sound of the mic i guess like anything. i wouldnt worry about which one you get . i just bought a e609silver and will be checking it out next week.
 
545's? They always seemed to be about the same as a 57 to me, just more expensive in their day. I've got a 544 (high impedence) I carry around for live situations with a female phone jack at the connection for when someone wants to give a speech or something. I've never considered it for recording, and rarely use my 57 either.
 
the proof is in the pudding....I've had nothing but great results with my 545. You have to remember that they are over forty years old. Many of there capsules have been damaged and worn through the years. It entirely depends upon the current condition of your mic. I've got a mint condition NOS 545 from 63' and its absolutely smooth and full.
 
My 545 is getting a lot of live use on guitar amps etc at the moment, I need to pick up one or two cheaper mics so I can save it for recording ... it's too old to be battered around in a crate full of gear!
 
The Mexican 57 and 58's are made the same way they were back when they were made in the US. The older American mics "being better sounding" is a lot of BS probably come up by someone selling one on Ebay.

Old ones and new ones as well can have some slight variation in sound from one mic to the next. The non-SM Shure 57 like the 545 and PE54 use capsules that were not quite up to spec for the SM series, from the ones I have heard this often seems to result in a little less bottom end which can be a good or bad thing depending on the particular situation.
 
Hmm, I wonder how critical of comparisions you did before you came to that conclusion. Just goes to show you how differently people can hear the same source.
As far as the 545 comment, well, that's true to a certain extent. However, the SM series did not come on the market until around 68 or so. Up until that time the 545 was the predecessor to the 57. I've never heard the bass rolloff that you speak of between the two mics but would be interested in hearing it.
 
The SM series did come out a couple of years earlier than you are saying but you are correct that the model 545 is older.

I haven't done any very scientific tests, I've just used and listened to various mics over the years, I have compared some side by side though. At work here I have six Mexican 57's just a few feet away from where I am sitting and I can tell you that they are good sounding mics that certainly live up to the reputation of the SM57 just fine.

Many products do change over the years, the current Sennheiser 421 isn't the same sounding mic it used to be, AKG made a number of different 414's since they first introduced it, ect, ect... but the SM57 is the same product it's just made in a different place.
 
Le Basseur said:
1.The ones who could do a comparison are too lazy to write down about it.
2.The ones who could do a comparison are old enough and maybe senile :o .
3.The subject itself doesn't deserve attention because of the low cost of the mikes in question.
4.The subject itself doesn't deserve NO attention because it comes from another part of the world,other than US/Canada and Western Europe :p (some time ago,I got such an answer on another forum so I must count on that too!).
5. (.....),you name it.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps it's just not all that interesting / important of a topic to ponder or comment on. :D :D
 
JM350 said:
The SM series did come out a couple of years earlier than you are saying but you are correct that the model 545 is older.

I haven't done any very scientific tests, I've just used and listened to various mics over the years, I have compared some side by side though. At work here I have six Mexican 57's just a few feet away from where I am sitting and I can tell you that they are good sounding mics that certainly live up to the reputation of the SM57 just fine.

Many products do change over the years, the current Sennheiser 421 isn't the same sounding mic it used to be, AKG made a number of different 414's since they first introduced it, ect, ect... but the SM57 is the same product it's just made in a different place.
Click to expand...

I agree, I also have a newer 57 that was made in Mexico and its a fine mic. I'm glad you think the two versions sound the same despite being built in different factories. Unfortunately, the sound is different. You see, when Shure moved south across the border they decided to not upgrade the stampers used to create the diaphrams. These wear over time, just like stampers used for vinyl record pressing. In direct A/B comparisions, the 545 clearly has more top-end detail and a smoother curve.
By the way, I went to the Shure website to find the exact date of the SM 57...it was 1965. Like I said in my post, "around 68," so I'm not sure of the point of your comment.
I'm glad you found something that works for you, but don't come in here and tell us its all bunk. I and many greater people than I, can hear the difference and that's all that really matters.
 
Just to throw my two cents in... I've got an old unidyne 57' that I bought ages ago new, with a lot of dust on it. And also a new one. The old one is softer sounding with less presence peak. Also a little less output. I use my new one for vocals,( I've got a little low mid thing in my voice) And I use the old one on my marshall cab(which can be a little shrill)....So there are definitly applications that could benefit from both.
Besides if it's good enough for the Pres' it must be the best,those guys buy $600.00 toilet seats!! (Yes, those are 57's with windscreens that George W. Bullshits into on T.V.)
 
As an added note... This is my signal chain for most of my vocals and acoustic stuff....It sounds surprisingly good for a low budget analogue 8 track
......My "new" 57' thru an imp. into my line 6 POD using just the tube preamp
model, with lots of compression(also from the POD) and noise gate on, direct to tape, with no eq or anything..I can sing a foot away from the 57 and get great results. Nice, open, airy vocals with very little noise.
 
goldtopchas said:
Besides if it's good enough for the Pres' it must be the best,those guys buy $600.00 toilet seats!!
Click to expand...

yeah-- but when your sitting on the crapper all day wanking like W seems to be doing, you need quality :) !!
 
Bottom line

Thanks to everybody for your inputs!

chessrock said:
"Or perhaps it's just not all that interesting / important of a topic to ponder or comment on."
I take your :D :D 's as a friendly way of saying that "you could combine point 3 and 5".However,if you seriously find this thread as being uninteresting,please read on because I'll explain why I started it.

OneArmedScissor said:
"If there was a clearly negative difference in the MIM ones, they wouldn't be one of the absolute most recommended/must have mics."
I partially agree with that...but what makes me doubtful about the old/new 57 issue is not necessarily the end consummer's impressions (that being GWB or anyone else ;) ) but rather consistency issues revealed by the ones who eventually opened these mics and eventually repaired them.
Amongst others,Scriabin offered the explanations I looked for.
To keep the things short,I have a ~25-years experience in building/repairing/tweaking/restoring instrument amplification.Mainly tube,but also SS (if a good friend's amp is in trouble :) ).Been there,saw them (almost) all.In this respect,I had a respectable bunch of guitar and bass amps (mainly Fenders,Edens and SWR's) of a recent production,all MIM,who had all kind of weird problems.Some were due to poor quality components,others had poor manufacturing Q issues and the most stunning case was that of an entire lot of Fender Blues Juniors (sold "as-is" by the national Fender dealer who was unable to service them...whoa!) wich had some wrong component values in wrong places on the PCB's.
I read about similar problems present on other tech's workbenches with the MIM stuff so,you see,my approach about the 57 issue is rather a tech inquiry than a "how they sound" one.
Please note that for what I said I don't intend to offend anyone and especially don't want to begin one of those "who's bigger" high-school debates.I was interested only in some tech details about a modern production of a cheap mic and I got my answers.
Regards to all,
Le Basseur
 
Le Basseur said:
I take your :D :D 's as a friendly way of saying that "you could combine point 3 and 5".
Click to expand...


No, all I'm saying is that it isn't a very thrilling topic. :D I love talking about cheap mics. Your thread just puts me to sleep, that's all. What is it even about? Are you trying to diss Mexico or something? Please. They work 10 times harder than Americans do, and make far less. I don't blame 'em for screwing around with your Blues Junior. I would, too. I'd probably spit in it. :D :D Just kidding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top