SM57 + preamp question (chessparov or anyone else ??)

[cjacek]

I was doing a search on SM57's and came upon a post by "chessparov" who said that the SM57 will not be appreciated as much being plugged in directly into a portastudio and when using a "good" external preamp. (I have a 424 portastudio btw). I just rented an SM57 and compared it to my beta 58a. I noted a few things: (1) "presence" is higher on the sm57 (2) the sm57 isolated the sound source (the lead singer) A LOT better (3) the sm57 sounded more "raw" like it had an "edge" to it ... kinda had a 70's sound to it or something (4) it had a lot more "popping" and "breath" noises occur than the other mic BUT overall it sounded clearer but less "bright" than the beta 58a. From all the specs it would seem that the beta 58 a would be better but I somehow tend to like the sm57. It's kinda a mistery why it sounds ... well ... different but good. I can't seem to place the sound of it but it sounds so 'Vintage" to me, which I like. The beta 58 a sound a bit "modern" to me and that's a bit of a let down after hearing the sm57. Overall I love the beta but when I heard the sm57 I'm kinda "addicted" to its very unusual sound. Oh, and yeah, I can't seem to cause a bad "proximity" effect with the sm57 even though I'm so close to the diaphragm, much closer than with the beta. But to my question with regards to preamps, and I hope someone can clear it up for me once and for all ... Will a preamp such as the RNP signifcantly improve the sound going to a cassette based portastudio with the sm57 or am I just wastin' money on a preamp ? Mind you that the 424mkIII has DBX, and moves 2x the speed of a normal cassette. I know it's a cassette format and it has its limitations but will the RNP help bring out more of "that sm57 sound" to the cassette than if I had no external preamp and just went straight to the porta ? Thanks a lot.

Daniel

 

[That_Abbott]

My guess is that almost any mic would sound better running through the RNP instead of the pre in the 424. For the popping, make sure to use a pop filter when you use the 57 on vocals.

ps- I'm so new to recording I probably shouldn't be giving out advice

 

[chessparov]

cjacek, in absolute agreement with your assessment of the "sound" of the
SM57 compared to a Shure Beta.

Although I haven't had the opportunity to use the RNP, by all accounts it's
more than capable of professional level results.
If price is a concern, however, the Studio Projects VTB-1 also does a good
job, perhaps not at quite the same degree that the RNP does on the SM57.
Either one would dramatically improve the sound in any case.

Once you start hitting around $500 like the RNP, I'd be curious about the
upcoming Toft Audio Products which will be starting with a street price of
not that much more, plus you would have vastly superior EQ and/or compression.

One of my recording formats is cassette via a Tascam 244 BTW.
Although not "politically correct" in most modern day AKA digital circles, the use
of an exciter (like Aphex) can be effective during the mixing stage when using a
narrow gauge analog format like cassette. Ty Ford, noted pro audio and broadcasting
engineer has remarked that use of an exciter (or enhancer) helps make a dynamic
microphone have more sizzle like a condenser has with moderate use.
It also can give more "air" to your SM57.
Just picked up an Aphex Type C Exciter for $10 off e-bay to play with.

Hope this helps.

Chris

P.S. The group White Town, scored a #1 hit in Britain ("Your Woman"), using a Tascam
8 track cassette (!!) recorder and PZM microphones for the vocals.
The PZM was choosen over a Neumann U87 that was available.

 

[chessparov]

Just wanted to add that the Joe Meek compressors go very well with
the SM57 for a vintage 60/70's style rock and/or R&B tone.
Within the next few months the revamped models may be out.

Chris

 

[eeldip]

yep, preamps make a difference

perhaps i am infected with marketing hype, but i recently got an earthworks pre, and i have been rediscovering all of my dynamic mics.

suddenly the affectations of all the individual dynamic mics sound like interesting tonal differences, not tonal limitations.

but with condenser mics, the difference is subtle. you can hear a frequency extension... but not as great as an improvement.

hard to explain...


but anyway, i dont think you are going to be terribly excited by getting something like a dmp3 or a studio projects pre... i would hold off till you get something of RNP/grace/earthworks quality.

 

[chessparov]

Yeah, I feel the same way about dynamic microphones.
For whatever reason, my other dynamics like the M88TG match
the VTB-1 even better and sound excellent.
It's no slouch though in the detail department with the SM57, to paraphrase Harvey Gerst's review, and it outperformed the RNP
by a wide margin on the RCA 77DX, again referring to said review.

Should have mentioned that the VTB-1 will probably have a price
decrease within the next 6 weeks per Alan Hyatt.

Chris

 

[cjacek]

Thanks very much guys! Very, very interesting and helpful replies to be sure

Daniel

 

[Dr. Bell]

I don't know if I could really recommend that someone spend $500+ on a preamp when recording to a cassete four track. Maybe an audio buddy or something, but I would only buy a pre in that range if I had a higher quality recorder. But hell, if the money is really burning a hole in your pocket then go for it.

 

[eeldip]

agreed

dr. bell is right.

unless you have a long term plan to improve your home recording set up. in which case, looking down the road you will be up grading your 4 track pretty soon as well. and spending thousands of dollars in the next few years. (sound scary?)

if this is your plan: starting off with a decent mic pre will do you fine.

if this is not your plan: you arent going to get your money's worth from a fancy pre. although if you buy used and get a good price you can always sell later and get all your money back. mic pres seem to hold their value pretty well.

 

[chessparov]

My personal experimentation actually verifies what many mastering engineers
and audio engineers indicate. That being the quality of the musical source,
including the microphone and mic pre greatly outweigh the recording device.
Good examples include the "Oh Brother Where Art Thou?" track "Po Lazarus"
that recorded a chain gang on... a wire recorder!
As far as I know, nobody yet has returned one of the 5+ million copies
sold due to that recorder being used or on "Big Rock Candy Mountain".

Trust me, it will make a BIG difference compared to the porta's pre's.

Chris

 

[cjacek]

My personal experimentation actually verifies what many mastering engineers
and audio engineers indicate. That being the quality of the musical source,
including the microphone and mic pre greatly outweigh the recording device.
Good examples include the "Oh Brother Where Art Thou?" track "Po Lazarus"
that recorded a chain gang on... a wire recorder!
As far as I know, nobody yet has returned one of the 5+ million copies
sold due to that recorder being used or on "Big Rock Candy Mountain".

Trust me, it will make a BIG difference compared to the porta's pre's.

Chris

Thank you again guys but I wanted to direct this question to chessparov .. Yeah, considering that the 424mkIII costs around 300 USD and a "good" preamp such as the RNP can cost about 500 USD it kinda boggles the mind that I'd be using a preamp that costs almost twice what my entire recording rig costs. I can see how someone would laugh at this proposition based on that cost ratio BUT I always think that there were studios, way way back, that recorded on to very "inferior", by today's standards, type recorders but they used condensers and mic preamps that today many would consider "vintage" and "superior" and would cost thousands of dollars. So they in fact were recording to "cheap" media, by today's standards, using superior mic / mic pres. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well but I'm sure the cassette in the porta doesn't know if you're using its pre's or an RNP or Grace or Avalon etc .. All it knows is to capture a "sound" and am wondering if the cassette running at 3 3/4 " per second with DBX "on" can capture the benefits of much more expensive preamps and that would make a world of difference ? I have a strange feeling that those who do not recommend good pre's for a cassette based porta are those who either (1) do not have experience with a porta and are strictly speaking "in theory" or (2) do record to portas but have cheap mic pres and say "they don't make a difference". What do you guys think ? chessparov ?? Anyone ???? I would love it if this could be put to rest by someone recording their voice with a good dynamic mic with or without a top end mic pre to a cassette based porta like the 424 and A/B'd them. Then we'd see. Also, I would love to hear more about the "microphone and mic pre greatly outweigh the recording device". That's pretty interesting and I had a feeling about this being the truth but could you please further explain what you mean.

Thanks again,

Daniel

 

[chessparov]

Daniel (cjacek), I think your questions are very well written.
Here's an easy way to give you a much better idea like it did
for me;

1) Take a CD of a something like "Nebraska" by Bruce Springsteen
that was originally recorded on a Tascam cassette multi-track.

2) Listen to the commercial cassette version of Nebraska
(or whatever other album fits this criteria) in comparison.

It's best to at least have a good set of headphones, if you don't
have good monitors or hi-fi speakers BTW. Then listen to them
on at least a decent CD and cassette player.

You'll most likely be surprised how close the cassette comes to the CD version when you listen closely. My point is that the
cassette format can make good sounding recordings for 99%+
of the listening public who aren't audio engineers, audiophiles,
or gearnuts like myself who hang out on BBS's.

Now...
If a cassette recording of a cassette recording can sound good-
again "good enough" to sell millions of copies?!

Chris

P.S. Another fun experiment is to record a CD on your Tascam
You get the idea.

 

[cjacek]

Daniel (cjacek), I think your questions are very well written.
Here's an easy way to give you a much better idea like it did
for me;

1) Take a CD of a something like "Nebraska" by Bruce Springsteen
that was originally recorded on a Tascam cassette multi-track.

2) Listen to the commercial cassette version of Nebraska
(or whatever other album fits this criteria) in comparison.

It's best to at least have a good set of headphones, if you don't
have good monitors or hi-fi speakers BTW. Then listen to them
on at least a decent CD and cassette player.

You'll most likely be surprised how close the cassette comes to the CD version when you listen closely. My point is that the
cassette format can make good sounding recordings for 99%+
of the listening public who aren't audio engineers, audiophiles,
or gearnuts like myself who hang out on BBS's.

Now...
If a cassette recording of a cassette recording can sound good-
again "good enough" to sell millions of copies?!

Chris

P.S. Another fun experiment is to record a CD on your Tascam
You get the idea.

YES, YES!!! Thanks Chris (now that I know your name ) it looks like just the experiment I was doing and thinking about in the last many months and perhaps years. I have a cd version and a cassette version of the same album. Actually I have many of the same titles from both the cd and cassette. Many of these are said to be "digitally mastered" or somethin' and I used to play sometimes the cd's and sometimes the cassettes. Now, if we are to go by the specs of the cassette and the cd format then by that we should assume that the cd would be FAR superior to cassette. But you know what ? They're almost identical. For an "inferior" medium, the cassette holds up pretty good. I also recorded a cd to my 424mkIII and the sound difference was non-apparent at first and even at second listen ... I'm not sure if one can pick these differences out not being an engineer and having some equipment with him. Sure, I've transfered some cd's to a normal tape deck (not 424) and there were some differences, like the lack of high end etc .. but to a top of the line multitracker such as the 424mkIII the differences were not really apparent. I can see your point Chris. But why am I not convinced that the same would happen with a mic pre ? Perhaps I was brainwashed into thinking that ? But deep down I know it WOULD make a difference but it's like I've been told by "experts" that it wouldn't make a difference so I just listened to them and disregarded my own opinions about it. Hmm .. Anyway, thanks Chris. If I get myself the RNP I'll be sure to post an A/B comparison and post the results to shut this matter down forever. Somethin' tells me we're right

Daniel

 

[chessparov]

Other than one of the pro's here like Harvey Gerst, I'd wager that a world
class audio engineer, like Tony Visconti with a Tascam 424, would dust any
"non-pro" here with a full on RADAR, Pro Tools, or 2" analog set-up.
His brilliant foreword in Tape Op's book should be required reading
for anyone who interested in recording engineering/production BTW.

As Harvey himself told me in person, first "ears", then "years" then gear.

Best of luck on your recordings,
Chris

 

[eeldip]

i completely agree with the theory that, in general, the order of importance for sound quality is: source-mic-pre-recorder.

and given that, it isnt weird to have a much better pre than a recorder.

but, given that theory you should be looking at getting nice instruments and nice mics before you start looking for a nice pre.



and on a whole other point: there is something to be said about the advice to NOT buy something. to NOT worry about the sound quality. to work on engineering skills and knowledge first.

i call this the "cheese pizza" problem. you know when you have 5 people deciding what toppings to get on a pizza, how it is almost impossible to convince everyone to order a plain cheese pizza. i have tried for years. never works. someone always wants to get one topping or another, and the discussion quickly turns to which topping is better than the other. and yet, cheese pizza is pretty damned good by itself. i love cheese pizza, but no one wants to hear that. they are so busy trying to get a million different toppings on the pizza that everyone agrees with.

 

[jslator]

...cheese pizza is pretty damned good by itself. i love cheese pizza...

That's seriously fucked up.

 

[chessparov]

And thick (analog) pizza is better than thin (digital) pizza.
Just don't tell that to a New Yorker!