• 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.

DI vs Mic, you really want a 57??? Really???

#41
kraigo said:
There are. But a typical venue (at least in Minneapolis) will have exactly one kick drum mic (Beta 52, AKG D-112 or something similar) and a handful of Shure '57's and '58's. You're not going to get the kick drum mic.
Click to expand...
i played the minnesota state fair once and you're right, the guy only had one kick mic. of course, that was back during a brief period when i actually preferred the di. glad those days are over ;)
 
#43
WalterBush said:
I use a DI.

I'm also a soundguy, and despise SM57's for a multiplicity of reasons. They're old sounding (which may be fine, depending on application of course), not durable, they have inconsistent QC, those plastic caps break when your drummer nails 'em, I could go on.
Click to expand...

I've found Sm57s to be very, very reliable, and very durable. However, there's a DIRTH of fakes out there, and they're utter crap. They work, but they explode the instant a drummer hits them, among other things.

I've had at least a dozen of them over the years, and about 1/2 of them broke or exploded or whatever. Every single one of the broken and exploded ones were fakes, and I only learned about this earlier this year when I started reading up about fake SM 57s. I'm not alone in this. When I found out about it, I called a couple of friends with studios. It turns out they had several fakes without ever knowing it, too.

Actually, one guy with the studio complained about having a mic explode on him. It happened that I read a thread on another unrelated forum about it, and started checking the exploded ones that I had (I'm a saver, and tend not to even throw out broken crap.) I was shocked and pissed. I gave him a call, and sure enough, his bad mics were fakes. I have another friend in the Bay Area that runs a nice, professional studio, and told him about it. He had a few in his arsenal, too, though they weren't busted (yet).

I made the mistake of buying most of them used off of Craigslist. Bad move. There's a ton of fakes out there, and there's even some that have made their way into some music shops.

Walter - do you still your busted mics, or are you sure of where you got them (i.e. did you personally buy them at a reputable place, not just get them from a buddy)? Check around on the internet, and, unfortunately, you might have been given the shaft. :(
 
#44
Ubersheist said:
I've found Sm57s to be very, very reliable, and very durable. However, there's a DIRTH of fakes out there, and they're utter crap. They work, but they explode the instant a drummer hits them, among other things.

I've had at least a dozen of them over the years, and about 1/2 of them broke or exploded or whatever. Every single one of the broken and exploded ones were fakes, and I only learned about this earlier this year when I started reading up about fake SM 57s. I'm not alone in this. When I found out about it, I called a couple of friends with studios. It turns out they had several fakes without ever knowing it, too.

Actually, one guy with the studio complained about having a mic explode on him. It happened that I read a thread on another unrelated forum about it, and started checking the exploded ones that I had (I'm a saver, and tend not to even throw out broken crap.) I was shocked and pissed. I gave him a call, and sure enough, his bad mics were fakes. I have another friend in the Bay Area that runs a nice, professional studio, and told him about it. He had a few in his arsenal, too, though they weren't busted (yet).

I made the mistake of buying most of them used off of Craigslist. Bad move. There's a ton of fakes out there, and there's even some that have made their way into some music shops.

Walter - do you still your busted mics, or are you sure of where you got them (i.e. did you personally buy them at a reputable place, not just get them from a buddy)? Check around on the internet, and, unfortunately, you might have been given the shaft. :(
Click to expand...

First I've heard of there being Shure fakes out there. I'll ask the people I know who would know, but it still doesn't change my opinion of SM57s. I just don't like the way they sound, and fake or not, a drummer whacks one of those and they're down for the count. The idea that there are counterfeits sold through reputable dealers is just one more reason I won't ever buy one for my own locker unless they're specifically requested in the studio.

They may have been the bee's knees a few decades ago, but IMO there are much better alternatives now. I think they get used because they're relatively cheap, easily replacable, and most engineers know how they sound. They're the standard only because everything in a lower price range is sub-standard.

Strangely enough, my favorite singing mic onstage is the SM57, and I'll grab one for my own vocals over anything else. I just don't like the hoops I have to jump through to make guitars, toms, and snares sound good with '57 when Audix makes alternatives that sound great with no more EQ than a HPF.

For the money, I'll take an i5 for all-around instrument miking over a '57 without a second thought. I've had nothing but great results out of them, and they're built like tanks.

You'll probably never catch me miking a bass cab with one, either, unless the person paying me insists.
 
#45
They are a popular mic because they work very well for a wide variety of applications, are reliable, sound good, have a fairly uniform rejection pattern, low handling/transmission noise, good RFI rejection etc. AND, they are reasonably priced,

Yes, there are a lot of fake Shure mics out there, that's why you should always buy them from a Shure authorized reseller or a vendor that you have a good working relationship with.
 
#46
TL5 said:
Yank the transformer out of the 57 and watch that frequency curve flatten out.
Sure, you'll lose 6 to 10db of output as well but a good preamp will take care of that (besides, how many times have you engaged the 10db pad anyway).

( Google; SM57 Terry Manning modification )
:cool:
Click to expand...

ive heard a test on that. much better to the ear, albeit quieter and (apparently) more susceptible to picking up background noise.

just dont use the modded one on a snare drum. win.
 
#48
TL5 said:
Yank the transformer out of the 57 and watch that frequency curve flatten out.
Sure, you'll lose 6 to 10db of output as well but a good preamp will take care of that (besides, how many times have you engaged the 10db pad anyway).

( Google; SM57 Terry Manning modification )
:cool:
Click to expand...

fwiw Link Removedsells a 57 and 58 w/ a better tranny for like $30-$40 more . . . always wanted to try one!
 
#49
JimmyM said:
i prefer the 58 slightly over the 57. with all the slagging that people do on 57's and 58's, there's still way more 57's and 58's on pro stages all over the world than any other mic on earth. i can't think of but maybe a handful of gigs in my life where the 57 and 58 weren't all over the stage. i also can't think of many major shows where you don't see 57's and 58's. pretty good for a mic that supposedly sucks.

anyway, if you combine a di with a 57 or 58, you will get a great tone that will give you anything you need. if you want the lows the mic doesn't have, you have the di, and then you have the sound of the amp in the mic giving it some character. it's an often-used low budget solution for people who like to mic amps but don't want to lose low end. you can't make that sound good, you probably should take some mixing lessons.
Click to expand...

... but they sound "old."

I like Beta 57's for a lot of stuff ... even some vocals.
 
#51
WalterBush said:
First I've heard of there being Shure fakes out there. I'll ask the people I know who would know, but it still doesn't change my opinion of SM57s. I just don't like the way they sound, and fake or not, a drummer whacks one of those and they're down for the count. The idea that there are counterfeits sold through reputable dealers is just one more reason I won't ever buy one for my own locker unless they're specifically requested in the studio.

They may have been the bee's knees a few decades ago, but IMO there are much better alternatives now. I think they get used because they're relatively cheap, easily replacable, and most engineers know how they sound. They're the standard only because everything in a lower price range is sub-standard.

Strangely enough, my favorite singing mic onstage is the SM57, and I'll grab one for my own vocals over anything else. I just don't like the hoops I have to jump through to make guitars, toms, and snares sound good with '57 when Audix makes alternatives that sound great with no more EQ than a HPF.

For the money, I'll take an i5 for all-around instrument miking over a '57 without a second thought. I've had nothing but great results out of them, and they're built like tanks.

You'll probably never catch me miking a bass cab with one, either, unless the person paying me insists.
Click to expand...

There's a TON of fakes out there, apparently, and not just SM 57s. Just about all the popular mics have fakes from China, Russia and various other places. The most common fake ones, from what I understand, are SM57s, 58s, and the Beta 87 series, as well as some of the Sennheisers and AKGs.

Here's a few good links to read up on (and get you worried about the quality of your mics):

Invalid Link Removed

Ebay also has some tutorials on how to spot fake Shures, AKGs (if I remember right) and a few other mics.
 
#54
devoge said:
shure 57s and 58s are basically the same besides the grill/windscreen
Click to expand...

They sound similar but notthe same. The mechanical differences do make a difference in sound and the cartrige is different, though the element itself is very similar. The cartrige mechanicals change the response characteristics of the mic, even if the element itself was identical.
 
#55
agedhorse said:
They sound similar but notthe same. The mechanical differences do make a difference in sound and the cartrige is different, though the element itself is very similar. The cartrige mechanicals change the response characteristics of the mic, even if the element itself was identical.
Click to expand...

Everything is the same except the housing/grill. Link Removed
If you remove the ball/grill on a 58, you essentially have a 57, albeit still a little different and fragile (unprotected).

Also:Link Removed

Further:
The SM58 and the SM57 share the same mic element, the Unidyne III. The only difference between the these two models is the grill design.

The grill design does affect the high frequency response, particularly above 8,000 Hz.

The SM57 grill design allows more proximity effect because the mic diaphragm can be placed closer to the sound source. Proximity effect increases each time the distance from the mic to the source is halved. When a mic is placed very close, it is quite easy to halve the distance: 1 inch to 1/2 inch; 1/2 inch to 1/4 inch; etc. Remove the ball grill from the SM58 and it will be more similar to the SM57 in its low frequency response.

Any other differences you hear between the SM57 and SM58 are likely to be subjective (psycho-acoustic) or due to slight manufacturing differences due to part tolerance.
Link Removed
 
#56
for me, it comes down to the realization that most bass players, and a lot of sound guys, think that we need to own the 30-100Hz area, and subsequently boost those freqs on their rigs. The reality, as we know, is that most bass players would sound better in the mix with a low (50-60hz) cut of about 10dB, as it would cut a lot of the mud out. So my thinking is that if a 57 does this naturally, so be it. You might not have that booming bottom that you think you need, but the band will sound better for it....

my .02, I could always be proven wrong....
 
#57
Dragging frequency-plots into mic discussion is a moot point, if you don´t specify how they are measured (usually in anechoic chambers and other non-real-life surroundings). Moreover, it´s the application that dictates if a mic is good or not. (close)Mic placement affects the frequency response in drastic ways also. And mic bleed and ambience will be an issue if you mic farther away to balance the response.

Anybody seasoned enough can tell you that it´s impossible to reproduce the whole range of bass with one mic (be it anything), and if full-range reproduction is desired, you´ll propably need to look into DI...

I would say the 57 is a pretty capable mic in the mid-high range. Add a DI, and you can get a decent sound all across the range. There might be a mic whose "character" you like more, but that doesn´t make the 57 crappy. Different strokes...
 
#59
57 can handle high spl
its a stage mic, its not amazing its not horrible.
its like mcdonalds and coca cola

brand name that everyone keeps on trusting, but then when you hear recordings done with it, you always question the sound in the back of your head.

there is about 100 different mics that sound better
and companys that sell's better mics in the same price range
probable wish shure would drop of the planet,

good snare mic

ok for guitar, and general stage use
 
#60
MarkMcCombs said:
for me, it comes down to the realization that most bass players, and a lot of sound guys, think that we need to own the 30-100Hz area, and subsequently boost those freqs on their rigs. The reality, as we know, is that most bass players would sound better in the mix with a low (50-60hz) cut of about 10dB, as it would cut a lot of the mud out. So my thinking is that if a 57 does this naturally, so be it. You might not have that booming bottom that you think you need, but the band will sound better for it....

my .02, I could always be proven wrong....
Click to expand...
I've heard bass rigs micked with a SM58 that sounded pretty darn good trough FOH.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back