M
MCI2424
New member
The SM57 is the most used and fantastic mic ever made in history. The Beatles even loved it.
Seafroggys
Well-known member
I wasn't even aware they used it at Abbey Road. The U47 was their primary mic.
tunetown
New member
They've got 7. Check out their mic collection. Simply staggering.
http://www.abbeyroad.co.uk/
Cheers
Peter
http://www.abbeyroad.co.uk/
Cheers
Peter
F
Fpellegrini
New member
From a mic salesman ...
I worked in a Guitar Center selling audio gear. SM 57's sell themselves almost 2-1 for stage instrument mic'ing. They are the industry standard though losing a lot of momentum to the Audix i5.
Not a good vocal mic? Why did Tom Petty swear by them for years? (Ok, maybe I should take that one back ...)
Not a good instrument mic for live? Hmmm ... ever see a tour "rider" that didn't have a couple 57's on it?
They are tough, well priced, and have very good frequency response for a mic introduced to the world in 1957 (hence it's name).
I own 10 or 12, gotta check. Yes there are better. But it's a workhorse.
I worked in a Guitar Center selling audio gear. SM 57's sell themselves almost 2-1 for stage instrument mic'ing. They are the industry standard though losing a lot of momentum to the Audix i5.
Not a good vocal mic? Why did Tom Petty swear by them for years? (Ok, maybe I should take that one back ...)
Not a good instrument mic for live? Hmmm ... ever see a tour "rider" that didn't have a couple 57's on it?
They are tough, well priced, and have very good frequency response for a mic introduced to the world in 1957 (hence it's name).
I own 10 or 12, gotta check. Yes there are better. But it's a workhorse.
D
dustinH
New member
^ That last line pretty much sums it up.
There are definitely better mics in the world, but not many that are as versatile as the 57.
There are definitely better mics in the world, but not many that are as versatile as the 57.
B
buryher17
New member
i love the 57. i hated it at first. i thought it was overrated and not that great but i picked one up for next to nothing and always left it on my snare and it sounds incredible. If you use 4 of them on a cab you can get an amazing sound too! one 57 though isnt that great on a cab. its thin and eh, but the more you put on it the nicer it sounds. very full. very versitle. I have 2 now and im buying 2 others this week now that i finally have some more money.
_brian_
Member
>>>I like<<< Because...
I don't have anything else, can't afford anything else (just now anyway), haven't really dedicated enough time to compare different mics.
I think there is much less difference from mic to mic as people make out unless you compare a really crap mic to a really excellent one. If you are able to listen & use your ear you can pretty much tweek mics with eq to make them sound good (within their fequency response) so that each part sonically adds to the musical piece. A great EQ section is more important to me than a great mic collection. Pretty unproffessional attitude and not the "correct" way to go about things, but I'm happy with my results
I'd hate to:
1\ become addicted to finding the perfect mic for each situation
2\ become obsessed with buying mic after mic
Really, mics aren't all that important to me, I can get a much better sound IMO to a lot of gear junkies on here that I've heard. I consider a song to be more important than a sound. There are some crap mics that are expensive as well though, so it's just a matter of sifting out the shit, this is pretty easy to do as people don't really hide their hatred for some of the crap mics out there. My paticular strain of hate stems from the AKG 3000B, an sm57 is much better than "that" IMO.
I think if people don't like a pretty much universally accepted mic like the 57, they probabley (after reading all the reviews & getting on the wave themself) assumed that it would be the solution to all their problems, "oh right, so this is why my snare sounds shit - I need a 57!!". After getting the mic home & finding that their snare still sounds shit, (probably due to having a shit snare in the first place or due to bad placement etc) they get really pissed off, blame the mic for everything & rue their wasted money.
It's a very inexpensive mic relatively, but it can produce (if you have the ear & technical know how) good results. I really don't know why anyone wouldn't like the mic. Perhaps there's a snobby element as well.
I don't have anything else, can't afford anything else (just now anyway), haven't really dedicated enough time to compare different mics.
I think there is much less difference from mic to mic as people make out unless you compare a really crap mic to a really excellent one. If you are able to listen & use your ear you can pretty much tweek mics with eq to make them sound good (within their fequency response) so that each part sonically adds to the musical piece. A great EQ section is more important to me than a great mic collection. Pretty unproffessional attitude and not the "correct" way to go about things, but I'm happy with my results
I'd hate to:
1\ become addicted to finding the perfect mic for each situation
2\ become obsessed with buying mic after mic
Really, mics aren't all that important to me, I can get a much better sound IMO to a lot of gear junkies on here that I've heard. I consider a song to be more important than a sound. There are some crap mics that are expensive as well though, so it's just a matter of sifting out the shit, this is pretty easy to do as people don't really hide their hatred for some of the crap mics out there. My paticular strain of hate stems from the AKG 3000B, an sm57 is much better than "that" IMO.
I think if people don't like a pretty much universally accepted mic like the 57, they probabley (after reading all the reviews & getting on the wave themself) assumed that it would be the solution to all their problems, "oh right, so this is why my snare sounds shit - I need a 57!!". After getting the mic home & finding that their snare still sounds shit, (probably due to having a shit snare in the first place or due to bad placement etc) they get really pissed off, blame the mic for everything & rue their wasted money.
It's a very inexpensive mic relatively, but it can produce (if you have the ear & technical know how) good results. I really don't know why anyone wouldn't like the mic. Perhaps there's a snobby element as well.
D
Daisy
Banned
At the same time, it is equally as puzzling why people talk about it so much.
They're a two-trick pony that can work pretty well on a guitar amp. And, although there are others I like better, they can work okay on a snare.
And I don't get the earthshattering moment of truth when I plug them in to a good preamp, either. Loading them down (with a higher impedence input), or running them in to a transformer-balanced input can sometimes open them up a little.
But an SM-7 is still just a far superior experience all the way around. And I've found just about any old Electrovoice dynamic (RE-16, RE-15, 666, etc.) to be far more versatile, while taking physical abuse just as well, and EQ abuse much better. Much better off-axis as well. Speaking of which, I recently picked up an old, beat-to-shit RE-16 from the local music exchange for about 15 bucks.
And I'd bet if you were to secretly replace every track ever made with an SM57 ... with THAT mic, then our favorite recordings would all sound noticeably better.Just my take.
I
iownrocknroll
New member
Since NS-10's make great sub kick and sub bass mics....Do you think the capsule of a 57 will make great headphones?
dkelley
Active member
used to really admire it and used it a lot. Still think it's a very well made/built/designed mic. There are just so many other options now that I prefer those to the 57.
great useful mic, I recorded entire albums with it that sounded terrific.
And with ALL beginners I tell them to use a 57, a $30 art tube pre and a soundblaster with cubase or sonar to learn how to record/edit/mix.
if you can't create a great album with that and the stock plugins then you're not ready to move onto other gear. In fact you may get better results from that than from other gear when you're learning - the 57 doesn't pick up much nasty room noise ,has a forgiving and attractive frequency response, is a generally pleasing tone, is cheap, reliable and solid, and is very equable.
cheers
great useful mic, I recorded entire albums with it that sounded terrific.
And with ALL beginners I tell them to use a 57, a $30 art tube pre and a soundblaster with cubase or sonar to learn how to record/edit/mix.
if you can't create a great album with that and the stock plugins then you're not ready to move onto other gear. In fact you may get better results from that than from other gear when you're learning - the 57 doesn't pick up much nasty room noise ,has a forgiving and attractive frequency response, is a generally pleasing tone, is cheap, reliable and solid, and is very equable.
cheers
C
chessparov
New member
Hey a '57 through a M-Audio DMP series or a (newer) Joe Meek pre is comparable to a Neumann U87ai/Avalon 737 combo (for my baritone voice) so sue me!
Chris
Chris
A
adamangler
New member
i hate the way this mic is oushed on beginers. a lot of the time i see advice on having one of these over a cheap condenser for vocals.
piss off with it
its crap..its a 50 quidmic, its good for what u pay and is an allrounder but c`mon
piss off with it
its crap..its a 50 quidmic, its good for what u pay and is an allrounder but c`mon
C
chessparov
New member
Check out some old youtube videos with the 57 (Jethro Tull/Bad Company/Kansas etc.) and you may find they can sound terrific!
Another cheapie vocal mic sleeper is the EV 635a BTW-lots of footage on that one too.
Plus much less fussy as to which mic pre is used.
Chris
Another cheapie vocal mic sleeper is the EV 635a BTW-lots of footage on that one too.
Plus much less fussy as to which mic pre is used.
Chris
dialatron
New member
57 was a great year !!!
Leave the 57 alone, its a great mic and deserves and earned and knows its place in history. If it sounds bad its because your recordings and songs are rubbish and you don't know how to use it, all you can do is blame the mic for your own failings..
Leave the 57 alone, its a great mic and deserves and earned and knows its place in history. If it sounds bad its because your recordings and songs are rubbish and you don't know how to use it, all you can do is blame the mic for your own failings..
1
121234...
New member
Whew! You wouldn't think that a simple mic could generate such a big deal. I use six SM57s which I bought because a handful of professionals told me they are a good staple in any situation. I found them excellent on the snare, and I use them on toms albeit with less success. They have their limits, and it's hard not to listen to other mics (Audix i5) and think that the 57 has been surpassed.
Funny, some of the examples used of famous recordings like Bad Company aren't very good examples IMO. The music was great, but I always thought they sounded sort of muzzled and lacking in clarity. Same for some Zep recordings, and Boston. They have that 70s sound, one that just doesn't cut it today perhaps due to the digital age, but also because of better mic technology I would suggest. I hate that flat, cardboard boxy drum sound of the old drum recordings. I prefer the modern trend to more resonance.
I have found that if I mess around with the 57s enough I can get what I want out of drums. I can't imagine using them for vocals when there are so many better alternatives. Condensers seem to have come a long way over the years both performancewise and pricewise, so I agree with the others here who say the SM57 is best used strategically to augment those more sophisticated microphones.
Is the SM57 shit? Certainly not; rather, it's a safe bet when you're unsure. I find I can always work with the sound it produces.
Funny, some of the examples used of famous recordings like Bad Company aren't very good examples IMO. The music was great, but I always thought they sounded sort of muzzled and lacking in clarity. Same for some Zep recordings, and Boston. They have that 70s sound, one that just doesn't cut it today perhaps due to the digital age, but also because of better mic technology I would suggest. I hate that flat, cardboard boxy drum sound of the old drum recordings. I prefer the modern trend to more resonance.
I have found that if I mess around with the 57s enough I can get what I want out of drums. I can't imagine using them for vocals when there are so many better alternatives. Condensers seem to have come a long way over the years both performancewise and pricewise, so I agree with the others here who say the SM57 is best used strategically to augment those more sophisticated microphones.
Is the SM57 shit? Certainly not; rather, it's a safe bet when you're unsure. I find I can always work with the sound it produces.
A
AudioGeekOnline
New member
Well - my recordings actually sound great.
Mainly because I have the proper training and don't use crap gear.
C
chessparov
New member
John Lennon had an old '57 that was cracked(!) that he liked to use for some of his studio vocal recordings. He brought it in one time and told the AE's to match it against their "best" and they were all shocked to hear how terrific it sounded on playback.
Good enough for John, good enough for me!
BTW Michael Jackson did quite O.K. on "Billie Jean" with the SM57. (the SM7 was used on other "Thriller" tracks)
Good enough for John, good enough for me!
BTW Michael Jackson did quite O.K. on "Billie Jean" with the SM57. (the SM7 was used on other "Thriller" tracks)
dialatron
New member
Don't tell me, let me guess .....your songs are still rubbish though !!!!
If its good enough for Johnny boy, its good enough for eternity !!!!
dialatron
New member
Tell us some more about John if there's anymore to be told.......
