• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass Cram-a-mic-through-the-afterlength guys: What are you using?

#21
Hmm, I've heard that the 57 and the 58 were basically the same mic with a different windscreen. I wonder if that's true? At any rate, what's really blowing me away about the SM58/FC combo is that it sounds way better than the AMT/FC combo....in my living room, that is. Time will tell if that holds true on a gig.

Rob - do you have any first hand experience with the Beta 57? I looked up the blurb for the 58 and came up with this:

Shure SM58 Features:
Frequency response tailored for vocals, with brightened midrange and bass rolloff
Uniform cardioid pickup pattern isolates the main sound source and minimizes background noise
Pneumatic shock-mount system cuts down handling noise
Effective, built-in spherical wind and pop filter
Supplied with break-resistant stand adapter which rotates 180 degrees
Legendary Shure quality, ruggedness and reliability
Cardioid (unidirectional) dynamic

The blurb on the Beta57 look like this:

Shure Beta 57A Features:
Tailored frequency response provides drums, guitars, vocals, and horns with studio quality sound
Uniform supercardioid pattern for high gain-before-feedback and superior rejection of off-axis sound
Hardened steel mesh grille that facilitates use of proximity effect and resists wear and abuse
Neodymium magnet for high signal-to-noise ratio output
Advanced pneumatic shock mount system that minimizes transmission of mechanical noise and vibration
Frequency response: 50 to 16,000 Hz


Looks like it might offer better feedback rejection, but doesn't have the built in bass rolloff.

Anybody tried a Beta 57 through the afterlength for live sound? That should be an easy enough mic to borrow here in town.
 
#22
IME the 57 and 58 are definitely different mics. The 57 has a close pickup patter and the 58 is kinda wide. The 57 has a drier, flatter sound and the 58 seems to have more color built in.

My guess is that the 58 would be the best for this project, not only for tone and pickup pattern, the the ball end helps it from falling out of the strings. :)
 
#23
Chris Fitzgerald said:
At any rate, what's really blowing me away about the SM58/FC combo is that it sounds way better than the AMT/FC combo....in my living room, that is. Time will tell if that holds true on a gig.
Click to expand...
Whoa. Definately report on that after your next coupla.
 
#25
Ray - I know that the Beta 57 and the regular 58 are way different, but on a lot of the recording forums, guys claim that the only difference between the regular 57 and 58 is the windscreen...which they all admit changes the color somewhat. Who knows? But the 58 sure sounds good at home.

JoftheFIELD - I don't have a digital camera, and the placement is kind of hard to describe, but I'll try. If you stick an SM58 through the bridge feet with the capsule pointing up toward the fingerboard, you get a good sound, but not much of a hot signal because the mic is designed to be very directional in a direct and straight line in front of the capsule. For instance you see a lotta guys mount their mics like this:

PB090145.jpg


(that was a pic of Wil Davis' Neumann, BTW)

That kinda works with the 58, but the sound is pretty weak and diffuse. The angle I found by accident was much more perpendicular to the top, say 70-80 degrees or so. I'm using a single piece of shockmount elastic between the feet, and the grill of the mic rests on that with the body of the mic going up and through the A and D strings of the afterlength. The other side of the "ball" of the mic is jammed up against the arch of the bridge with a felt cymbal washer to protect against vibrations. So the mic is not exactly stright up and down to the top, but somewhere in between 90 and 45 degrees, with the better sound coming the closer I can get it to 90 degrees. Does that make sense?
 
#26
[/Quote] That kinda works with the 58, but the sound is pretty weak and diffuse. The angle I found by accident was much more perpendicular to the top, say 70-80 degrees or so. I'm using a single piece of shockmount elastic between the feet, and the grill of the mic rests on that with the body of the mic going up and through the A and D strings of the afterlength. The other side of the "ball" of the mic is jammed up against the arch of the bridge with a felt cymbal washer to protect against vibrations. So the mic is not exactly stright up and down to the top, but somewhere in between 90 and 45 degrees, with the better sound coming the closer I can get it to 90 degrees. Does that make sense?[/QUOTE]

Chris, I'll bet you get a nice hot signal this way, but I would be too nervous about the whole thing just toppling out, potentially damaging the top and/or ruining a performance. I often carry a small mic boomstand in my car when I'm going to a gig where there will be pro sound w/ lower volumes. You can get the mic at this optimal 90 degree angle and get pretty close to it. Also I don't mind a few inches of "air". I think this gets a better arco sound to be sure. Gives the sound wave a little room to open up. But even for just for piz, you can get real close this way if you like. W/ my bass the area of the top between the bridge and the treble side 'f' hole, a little north of the bridge, seems to be the area for best mic placement, live OR in the studio.

BG
 
#27
Quick Question.

I know someone here in my town who takes an old sony (dont know which model) and attaches it to the taipiece pointing towards the floor.
To my logic this would not be the way to get the optimal sound, on the other hand though he gets this amazing warm and woody sound, so hes gotta be doin something right.

What do you guys think of this?
 
#28
bribass said:
Chris, I'll bet you get a nice hot signal this way, but I would be too nervous about the whole thing just toppling out, potentially damaging the top and/or ruining a performance. I often carry a small mic boomstand in my car when I'm going to a gig where there will be pro sound w/ lower volumes. You can get the mic at this optimal 90 degree angle and get pretty close to it. Also I don't mind a few inches of "air".
Click to expand...

I can dig it. My goal is to make the thing as "plug -n- play" as possible, and with the shockmount elastic, it feels pretty secure and I plan on bagging up the bass and carrying it that way to see if it holds. Since I'm using the Focus II heads wherever I go, I just want to plug one cable from mic to channel 2, the other cable from pickup to channel 1, and start playing. If this works well on this bass (my plywood LaScala), I may just have to try it on my hybrid and see if it sounds as good as or better than the AMT....but I'm getting ahead of myself there. Patience! :help:
 
#29
Chris Fitzgerald said:
I can dig it. My goal is to make the thing as "plug -n- play" as possible, and with the shockmount elastic, it feels pretty secure and I plan on bagging up the bass and carrying it that way to see if it holds. Since I'm using the Focus II heads wherever I go, I just want to plug one cable from mic to channel 2, the other cable from pickup to channel 1, and start playing. If this works well on this bass (my plywood LaScala), I may just have to try it on my hybrid and see if it sounds as good as or better than the AMT....but I'm getting ahead of myself there. Patience! :help:
Click to expand...

Do you ever have feedback problems w/ the mic thru your bass cab?
I find I get better, more feedback resistant results when I give the mic signal to the sound man or board of the PA so the mic signal is coming thru the house. Oh, I just remembered that you put your speaker up on a pole. That would deffinately help w/ the feed back issue, but w/ some rooms and stages ya need the added low end of having the speaker on the floor or space issues that make the pole thing inconvenient. In that case the mic sound would be a little too close to the bass and I've found w/ limited experience in trying this, that as volumes go up, the feedback likelihood goes up as well.

I've used the AMT once when a sound man had one for a concert in a difficult room. I didn't feel that it was "all that" and the mounting business w/ the clamp on the bout of the bass was a hassle w/ my Prescott's wide ribs. But I know that you can get a gooseneck type clip for the thing. I sometimes borrow a percussionist friends Audio Technica, condenser clip on gooseneck mic. The AT35 I think? I've seen it discussed in threads here. It works pretty well w/ good isolation. I don't think they're much over $200. I've had sound men compliment it's isolated good sound and that was w/ loud drumming goin' on.

BG
 
#30
Chris,
I have a very similar set up...and I tried the sm58 into the focus (as you suggest at 90 degree to bass) Sounds purty damn good so long as it is suspended well. The SM58 is one of the most focused and narrow (bleed resistant) mics. It actually sounds damn good. I have the ATM 35 and the 58 sounds a lot better to me and no extra boxes. Let us know if you figure out a good mounting technique.
 
#32
I've been experimenting in my basement studio with an ATM41a mixed with my Realist and I'm liking the sound. The best I've gotten so far. The 41a is AT's answer to the SM58 I believe. I bought it several years ago and while I don't remember the exact price, it wasn't too bad.
 
#33
Chris Fitzgerald said:
I may just have to try it on my hybrid and see if it sounds as good as or better than the AMT....but I'm getting ahead of myself there. Patience! :help:
Click to expand...
Dude, no offence, 'cuz you're the expert to be sure. But I can't help but wonder why or if you hadn't tried this before. The 58's are ... ubiquitous.

Please help me understand what's new / changed. Is it the angle of the mic more perpendicular to the table thing?

I guess I'm thinking that's a lot like a 58 on a mic stand though (and all the constraints / advantages a stand imposes), albeit much closer and at a fixed distance from the top of the bass... right?
 
#34
Chris Fitzgerald said:
The angle I found by accident was much more perpendicular to the top, say 70-80 degrees or so. I'm using a single piece of shockmount elastic between the feet, and the grill of the mic rests on that with the body of the mic going up and through the A and D strings of the afterlength. The other side of the "ball" of the mic is jammed up against the arch of the bridge with a felt cymbal washer to protect against vibrations. So the mic is not exactly stright up and down to the top, but somewhere in between 90 and 45 degrees, with the better sound coming the closer I can get it to 90 degrees. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

bolo said:
Please help me understand what's new / changed. Is it the angle of the mic more perpendicular to the table thing?

I guess I'm thinking that's a lot like a 58 on a mic stand though (and all the constraints / advantages a stand imposes), albeit much closer and at a fixed distance from the top of the bass... right?
Click to expand...

Chris: This is very interesting to me. I tried it at home with my beat 58, it works pretty good but I am still not sure about your set up, for me it was a little flimsy. So maybe you can borrow a digital camera so we can all understand. And I don't like the idea of the mic resting on the top as that seems like it would increase feedback potential. Also instead of a cymbal felt (seems like it could slip in transit), how about a simple wind screen for the 58?
 
#35
bolo said:
Dude, no offence, 'cuz you're the expert to be sure. But I can't help but wonder why or if you hadn't tried this before. The 58's are ... ubiquitous.
Click to expand...

I have tried using 57's and 58's before, but never as a blended signal with a pickup, and never this close to the top of the bass.

Please help me understand what's new / changed. Is it the angle of the mic more perpendicular to the table thing?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I remember that when I used to sing into this mic, it worked the same way - to really cut through, you had to sing directly into the diaphragm. What's interesting about this setup is that the ball of the mic is about 1-2" from the top of the bass, and doesn't move.

Univac: I'll be happy to borrow a camera and take a picture or two IF this experiment turns out to be worth anything. Last night's rehearsal with the mic only went better than I expected, but that's still not proof of anything. Wednesday's gig is drummerless, so that'll also be an "asterisk" gig, but at least that's a real life situation. I have to say that at this point, all I really have is a great sound in my living room, and how many times have we all heard that before?
 
#36
bolo said:
I guess I'm thinking that's a lot like a 58 on a mic stand though (and all the constraints / advantages a stand imposes), albeit much closer and at a fixed distance from the top of the bass... right?
Click to expand...
Chris Fitzgerald said:
I have tried using 57's and 58's before, but never as a blended signal with a mic, and never this close to the top of the bass.
Click to expand...
Okay ... Thoughts & threads have converged. Thanks. Awaiting pics if you like where the experimentation leads.

I still fiddle (no pun intended) with my AMT when time permits. Like most you'z guyz knowz, the angle of the mic to the table is just one variable that can really change the sound. Sometimes for me angling the mic up toward the FB just a tad sounds more open & natural than perfectly perpendicular to the table.

______________________________________________

Hm, today I wrote "ubiquitous" and "perpendicular". Cain I spell or what? ("Spell" has two syllables in North Carolina - spay and ull.)
 
#38
Ray Parker said:
IME the 57 and 58 are definitely different mics. The 57 has a close pickup patter and the 58 is kinda wide. The 57 has a drier, flatter sound and the 58 seems to have more color built in.

My guess is that the 58 would be the best for this project, not only for tone and pickup pattern, the the ball end helps it from falling out of the strings. :)
Click to expand...

I seem to recall that the 58 has more proximity effect- bass is emphasized at very close distances- and the 57 was designed to have a more even response.
 
#39
Chris Fitzgerald said:
The blurb on the Beta57 look like this:

Shure Beta 57A Features:
Tailored frequency response provides drums, guitars, vocals, and horns with studio quality sound
Uniform supercardioid pattern for high gain-before-feedback and superior rejection of off-axis sound
Hardened steel mesh grille that facilitates use of proximity effect and resists wear and abuse
Neodymium magnet for high signal-to-noise ratio output
Advanced pneumatic shock mount system that minimizes transmission of mechanical noise and vibration
Frequency response: 50 to 16,000 Hz

Looks like it might offer better feedback rejection, but doesn't have the built in bass rolloff.
Click to expand...
Hey Chris. Thanks for all your posts.

Not nitpickin', but I noticed that the specs you pulled were for the Beta 57A. I could be wrong, but I think the SM 57 is more widely used. Maybe the Betas are just as prevalent these days - I dunno. I'm drawing on my rock 'n' roll experience from a former life a little. I don't think the SM 57's have changed that much over the years.

But there are some diffs between the two 57's apparently. From the Shure web site for the SM 57:

Contoured frequency response for clean, instrumental reproduction and rich vocal pickup
Professional-quality reproduction for drum, percussion, and instrument amplifier miking
Uniform cardioid (vs. supercardoid) pickup pattern isolates the main sound source while reducing background noise
Pneumatic shock-mount system cuts down handling noise
Extremely durable under the heaviest use
Frequency response: 40 to 15,000 Hz (vs. 50 to 16,000 Hz )

All just FWIW. You ARE da man.

[ Edit / afterthought: The Beta 57A does have a bigger head - I mean windscreen - to help prevent falling out from between the strings. ]
 
#40
You might try an Audio Technica Pro-37. Very, very small condensor mic however it requires phantom power. It appears that they are back in production.. You can find them used on the "Bay" for around $75. I find for a small condensor they have less self-noise than the Shure Beta Green 4.0/4.1 or the older Audio Technica ATM series.

I still have my Crown GLM (great little mic) mounted on my old bass. When I play festival gigs (where I only bring a preamp and use their speakers) I blend it with the K&K BassMax into a Rane AP-30 preamp (single space rack). I send two XLRs to the FOH guy and tell the monitor engineer to only put the BassMax in my monitor.

From memory I believe that the Shure SM57 and the SM58 have the same capsule. I could be mistaken however.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back