Sm57 Poll

[scrubs]

It's already been said, but what other mic under $100 is as versatile and durable as the SM57? It certainly has its sound, which is not perfect, but it is completely usable for just about anything. The fact that you can continue to find uses for it (snare, amps, etc.) even after acquiring better mics makes it a good buy, imo.

Granted, I think its popularity for home recording came about in the days long before cheap chinese condensers and, thus, even the prevalence of phantom powered preamps in home studios (not many 4-track cassette recorders had phantom). It was something relatively cheap that you could plug in and make music.

 

[rayc]

Useful & usable but I JUST DON'T LIKE IT.
Mind you I like the sound of my Sony ECM 19B's so I'm a crock.
Now with my little Naisant MH1A I have a great little mic for close to a cab & all the other things the 57 has had the cred for.

 

[Han]

For those who are so fond of the 57: Audio Technica makes a whole line of very inexpensive dynamic mics, from $29 up to some $100.

And they all sound better in most applications than the modern mexican made SM57.

The 57 is a foolproof workhorse, but I've never really got to like it. It's my favorite talkback mic now.

 

[danny.guitar]

Now with my little Naisant MH1A I have a great little mic for close to a cab & all the other things the 57 has had the cred for.

Yea I know the MSH isn't really "made" for recording guitar amps but it happens to sound real good. Especially with proper mic placement.

 

[ofajen]

It's already been said, but what other mic under $100 is as versatile and durable as the SM57? It certainly has its sound, which is not perfect, but it is completely usable for just about anything.

OK, this is entirely unfair, but I managed to locate a total of four EV RE-55s over the last decade, at an average of $80 each. For the way I work they are much more versatile and useful in the studio, they are just as durable, and obviously have a much, much more accurate sound. However, they have been discontinued since about 2000 or so and are very hard to find and I got all mine used. They weren't under $100 new, that's for sure. Plus, for live sound with amplification, they are not good, since they are omni. Of course, for live recording only, they are great. So, as I said, they met those criteria for me, but probably won't be found for under $100 these days, if you can find any at all.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[notCardio]

For all those who claim that no 'modern' producer would use one

I just read an article with the producer of Evanescence who uses a, guess what, 57 , in conjunction with some other mics, to get their guitar sound.

I'm not saying it's the best available, I wouldn't know. What I am saying is that those who say it's a myth, a bunch of BS, that pros still use them are wrong.

It's a mic. If you like the sound you get with it, use it. If not, don't.

But for chrissakes, quite arguing about it. Move on.

And about the NS-10 comment, nobody ever said they were great speakers. The were used to simulate the real world of the average home stereo of the day. They are still used specifically because they lack any appreciable low or high frequency response. This allows the engineer to focus on the midrange, where most of the sonic information is, to make sure everything is well balanced and audible. Some guys spend a majority of their time on either NS-10s or their equivalent to get the mids right. The larger, high-end monitors are used primarily to check bass and the high frequncy stuff. Unfortunately, most of us can't afford 3 sets of monitors, so we make the best compromise we can. I'm currently rethinking my monitor setup for when I get things put back together.

Sorry, didn't mean to turn this into a monitor thread.

 

[soundchaser59]

It's a decent mic. It's a poor craftsman that blames the tools. It's not a condensor, it's a dynamic. It is what it is.

It's a poor craftsman who doesn't buy the best tools......

You're right, of course......it is what it is. What other $89 dollar mic is better? I cant say it is crap, cuz if I say that it is only because I'm comparing it to an RE20 or a 414 or an MD421 or an ND468, etc.....

 

[Yareek]

It's very solid and durable, sound decent on most everything, sounds phenomenal on most amps and some snare drums. Usually there is a mic for a little more money that can sound better, but its versatility and price seem to make it very popular.

This is from a hom-rec'er, so I didn't run it through a $3k preamp, which a lot of people say makes the mic amazing. I use it for vocals on my PA and for electric guitar...I have mics I prefer on every other source.

 

[notCardio]

I used to have seven, now I have two: a pair of the old Unidyne IIIs. I still occasionally find a use for one. But over the last 25 years, my music, recording methods, technical understanding, and family situation have evolved. If I still close miked drums, I might have more use for them. Of course, there are probably other mikes I'd now choose over them for that purpose, if I could afford it. Still, I'm OK with keeping a pair in the mike collection.

Cheers,

Otto

Those Unidynes do have their own sort of mojo, don't they? I always assumed it was my personal history with them, but I keep hearing others who like them too, so maybe it's not just me.

 

[ecktronic]

personally, i think the mic sounds HORRRIBLE

you can mic vox, kick, snare, guitar, anything...and it won't sound terrible.


did any of that make sense?

Almost. I know what you mean though.

Eck

 

[The Owl]

It's a decent mic. It's a poor craftsman that blames the tools. It's not a condensor, it's a dynamic. It is what it is.

Couldn't agree more! Being a dynamic, it is good for certain things, especially where you don;t want quite the heightened sensitivity you get with a condenser.

 

[rustyblue]

A classic is a classic, if we still talk and use this mic is probably because it's still has it's value. Depends on what you record and color you want to give your recordings. Can always be helpful

 

[BRIEFCASEMANX]

good on guitarz. never been super happy with them on snare, but i've never been super happy with ANY mic on snare, so it's probably a musicianship/tuning/room/engineering problem rather than anything else.

 

[laststartoshine]

hahahahaha yeah

i hope you understand what i meant. i can see where it MAY have been confusing, haha.

to clarify:

a)i personally, I HATE the way it sounds. I would never use it on anything. There are far worse mics, however.

b)I can understand why it is recommended as a beginners mic though, because of it's low cost, and versatility.


sorry for the momentary brain fart on the other post. i think i'm cool now.

 

[ecktronic]

A classic is a classic, if we still talk and use this mic is probably because it's still has it's value. Depends on what you record and color you want to give your recordings. Can always be helpful

Anthony Keidis from Red Hot Chili Peppers used it for recording the vocals on Californication.
Those vox sound pretty good to me. He holds the mic right up at his mouth. No need for a vocal booth as the mic is in his mouth.

Eck

 

[scrubs]

Anthony Keidis from Red Hot Chili Peppers used it for recording the vocals on Californication.
Those vox sound pretty good to me. He holds the mic right up at his mouth. No need for a vocal booth as the mic is in his mouth.

Eck

I'm pretty sure he uses/used an SM7, not an SM57, on many of their recordings.

 

[Track Rat]

On the last album, they used a 57 on the kick.

 

[Freudian Slip]

I sing live into a 57. I like the hyped hi end and less of a proximity effect than most ball mic's. I sang through e/v mics at over twice the price for years and used to have to eq the hell out of them and still be muddy, The 57 is just more crisp.

It fit's my voice well. Some day I will look around some more but for now I'm liking the 57.

As for recording. I think the 57 does a pretty good job on alot of things.
I think it gets recomended alot to newer people because of the fact that it's a jack of all trades for the most part.

It's like I say about anything that works for many situations. It's generally not the best at any one job. In the 57's case it does amazingly well considering the number of applications people use it for.

Just my opinion.

F.S.

 

[MCI2424]

On the last album, they used a 57 on the kick.

I have used them as doorstops on occasion. Holds the door open for 20 times less cost than a U87.

I like that.

 

[Chris.]

Setting the record straight for what?

Are we going back to albums previously though great sounding and now finding them "not so great" because the guitars or snares were recorded with a 57?