Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

[lex666]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

Hmmm... I just picked up a Senn 609 instead of the SM57... I was told the Senn is THE mic for guitar recording... While the SM57 is good for alot of things, the Senn 609 was specifically made for guitar recording and therefore better than the SM57... I bought it... Haven't had the chance to use it yet... How do these 2 compare?

 

[That90'sGuy]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

thats not true. i have two of them and they are good mics but they arent the best. record the same track with a sm57 then a md421 and the 421 sounds more open and alive. in a dense mix a 57 is punchy and cuts thru really well, especially if you use lots of gain. in a smaller band situation where there is more sonic space a better mic is very noticable.

i recorded an album in the fall and the engineer used a 57, the tracks came out ok but i can tell he used a 57 which doesnt really make me smile.

for $100 its a gotta have mic, but its not the best. im gonna pickup a heil pr30 for $250, its what wahwah uses and from the people ive talked to they love it. a friend of mine has one that he is gonna let me borrow, if its as good as i think. it will be my new guitar mic.

Just a silly question Jeremy, but why not record with just the MD421? Is it because of the cost? I, too, prefer the sound of the 421, but it really mixes well with a SM57 if you play around with it.

 

[That90'sGuy]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

Thank you all. However, could you guys please clarify the importance of a mic preamp?

My sound card has a built-in preamp (Sound Blaster X-Fi series) but I presume it's been done with those little microphones for Skype and stuff in mind. What am I missing with not having a proper preamp for the Shure? Is it really fundamental or just something nice to have but that I could live without and still record and sound OK?

Also another thing... let's say the preamp is indeed a must, and that I buy the preamp and the 57. I've got the guitar, the amp can definitely do it... Is there any other fundamental gear missing in the link for proper, at least decent recordings? Thanks again.

Whoever says "a tube amp and a Fender!" will be shot!

As others have mentioned, I'd stay away from your sound card preamp. The SM57 is a pretty "in-your-face" kinda mic and it could use a warmer preamp. For decent recordings though, you can really get away with just about anything. I used a Tascam US-122 for my recording for a while until I could afford the Apogee setup I have now. You can find one used for $70 (I have one for sale even, but you can find them on eBay for around that).

 

[dystrust]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

If someone could come up with a con then they've never actually worked with the mic.

I respectfully disagree. While I agree that everyone should have one, I can hardly say they're without fault. For leads or something that you want to really cut through the mix, it's a great mic and I love it on snare drums. However for rhythm guitar tracks I greatly prefer an MD-421. It has a lot more body and definition than an SM57 without the potentially shrill high end. At $350 new it's a bit out of this price range.

If you're looking for a budget alternative to the 57, an Audix i5 is hard to beat. It sounds almost as big as an MD421 with slightly tighter bottom and brighter highs without being as bright as a 57.

Lastly I have to agree with the_Chris on having a decent mic preamp. I seriously doubt you'll be able to hear any difference between any of these mics using the input on your sound card. While a new mic probably wouldn't hurt, it doesn't sound like the weak link in your signal chain at the moment.

 

[Virtual Kevorkian]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

If you're looking for a budget alternative to the 57, an Audix i5 is hard to beat. It sounds almost as big as an MD421 with slightly tighter bottom and brighter highs without being as bright as a 57.

The i5 is way brighter than an SM57. it may be the midrange content of the 57 that's throwing you off, but the i5 is boomier and has more high end, for sure. I went back and forth for a good month or so between the two before settling on the 57 on cabs.

 

[Jay 77]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

Maybe it's just me, but I find the 57's to be too sterile and grainy for studio recording. They're workhorses on stage and are solid in that respect, but I much prefer a warmer mic in the studio. It might be because my general guitar tone has enough grit and bite already. Condensers all the way for me.

 

[alanfc]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

here have a look at a thread I started a ways back too, lots of discussion to add:

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=998231&highlight=comparison

 

[ratherdashing]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

For micing midrange-heavy high SPL sources (aka guitar amps) it's hard to beat it, especially in a live setting.

That said, I think a big part of its popularity simply comes down to familiarity. I find it is often overused, or used for the wrong application. There are a lot of large diaphragm condensers out there nowadays that can handle the volume a guitar amp puts out, and I don't think anyone would argue that you'll get a more complex, detailed response from an SM57 than from one of those.

 

[kevlar3000]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

I am in the world wide minority but I hate em, after I finished my 1st Planet K album I vowed to never use one for either guitar or drums again. As I am in the final phases of my follow up, I have been useing old Radio Shack PZMs as the work horse for both guitars and drums. The big issue for me is that I no longer care for close up mic's on drums or guitars, which is what the 57 is built for. I feel there is too much sound that I am not getting, so for my ears and $$$ the PZMs that I tossed some XLRs on, blow em out of the water.

That said there are a billion classic tones done with em, but I only fought with em til I couldn't stand it anymore.

 

[That90'sGuy]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

I am in the world wide minority but I hate em, after I finished my 1st Planet K album I vowed to never use one for either guitar or drums again. As I am in the final phases of my follow up, I have been useing old Radio Shack PZMs as the work horse for both guitars and drums. The big issue for me is that I no longer care for close up mic's on drums or guitars, which is what the 57 is built for. I feel there is too much sound that I am not getting, so for my ears and $$$ the PZMs that I tossed some XLRs on, blow em out of the water.

That said there are a billion classic tones done with em, but I only fought with em til I couldn't stand it anymore.

I guess it all comes down to the context.

57s benefit from the proximity effect and that's where they get their noted aggressiveness from. In a group where the guitars are a priority, it's no problem dialing in a few extra dbs there. It just seems that in bands where there is quite a bit of different instrumentation, multiple vocals, etc. that the more narrow focused tone of a close mic'd setup actually helps. By itself, the SM57 is not a very flattering mic, but in a full band context, that extra mid push and cut can really help bring the guitar out in the mix without stepping over other instruments.

The way an engineer friend of mine used to put it to me was like this: you've got this tube where audio passes through, you have to choose what instrumentation is going to take up what space. If there's not much going on, you can dial in as open or a wide sound as you want because there's more space available, but in more busy sections, certain instruments need to have a certain focus in order for the mix to be clear and powerful (which is where you'd dial in for instance guitars primarily in the mids, bass stuck to the lowend, vocals more in front, etc.).

Some people aren't going to like the character of the SM57 and it's understandable - heck, I've just recently fallen in love with the sound of an MD421 (and if I owned a Royer I'm sure that's all I'd use being the gear slut that I am) and the SM57 can sound harsh and grainy in comparison, but it does serve its purpose in the right context.

 

[MattPete]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

Interesting as I've been reading up alot and I've read a few reviews that claim the Sennheiser 906 (similar to the one you mention) are better for cleans and the SM57 is better dirty. What kinda sounds were coming out your amp?

Sweet, heavenly sounds were coming out of my amp.

Harsh, ice-picky, transistor, garbage was being recorded through the Sennheiser.

 

[MattPete]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

The SM57 is one that should be in anyone's mic locker. It's the best darn thing around for snare drums .....

The funny thing is that before I bit the bullet and bought and SM57, I found a shoot-out of mics for snare drums. I listened carefully, and it was the SM57 that seemed to capture the snare the best. With a little bit of imagination, it was those same frequencies that the SM57 did well with that I wanted to hear from my amp (and the same frequencies that it dampened).

I wish I knew the url, but with a little bit of googling maybe someone can find it. No, it's not guitar, but the shoot-out seems to do a ****ed good job of showcasing the strengths and weaknesses of various mics.

 

[MattPete]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

Hmmm... I just picked up a Senn 609 instead of the SM57... I was told the Senn is THE mic for guitar recording... While the SM57 is good for alot of things, the Senn 609 was specifically made for guitar recording and therefore better than the SM57... I bought it... Haven't had the chance to use it yet... How do these 2 compare?

That's what I was told when I bought my Sennheiser. It may have been designed for recording guitars, but it sounds like ass.

I'm not saying that the SM57 is the be-all and end-all of guitar mics, but its a ****ed good place to start, and there are far worse choices out there.

 

[J Moose]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

I am in the world wide minority but I hate em, after I finished my 1st Planet K album I vowed to never use one for either guitar or drums again. As I am in the final phases of my follow up, I have been useing old Radio Shack PZMs as the work horse for both guitars and drums. The big issue for me is that I no longer care for close up mic's on drums or guitars, which is what the 57 is built for. I feel there is too much sound that I am not getting, so for my ears and $$$ the PZMs that I tossed some XLRs on, blow em out of the water.

That said there are a billion classic tones done with em, but I only fought with em til I couldn't stand it anymore.

Those old Rat Shack PZM's are KILLER mics.

The ones made about 15+ years ago were built by Crown and with a little tinkering can run off phantom power or any external source up to 24volts I think... sound WAY better when you do that. Headroom & freq. response go through the roof.

Crazy good mics. I used to have a pair... wish I still had 'em sometimes.

They do sound great on guitars & drums... vocals... anything.

SM57 is lo-fi hi-fi.

Takes EQ well... never sounds great on anything, but rarely sounds bad.

Sounds much better run into a mic amp with a proper 600ohm transformer.

Sounds like crap through an IC amp like a Smackie or anything of the sub $500 guitar mart variety.

Can't say there's anything I don't like more then a 57... Senn 609 is good, the old 409 is killer on anything... 421 is great... 441... Lots of great mics out there...

EV635a...

go look that one up!

 

[Kosh Naranek]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

Thank you all. However, could you guys please clarify the importance of a mic preamp?

My sound card has a built-in preamp (Sound Blaster X-Fi series) but I presume it's been done with those little microphones for Skype and stuff in mind. What am I missing with not having a proper preamp for the Shure? Is it really fundamental or just something nice to have but that I could live without and still record and sound OK?

Also another thing... let's say the preamp is indeed a must, and that I buy the preamp and the 57. I've got the guitar, the amp can definitely do it... Is there any other fundamental gear missing in the link for proper, at least decent recordings? Thanks again.

Chilean Guy, I think you are right about your Sound Blaster preamp. Those are a consumer product, not a studio recording preamp. And they're not a studio recording audio interface either.
These days, a lot of audio interfaces from makers like M Audio, MOTU, Presonus and others have mic preamps built into them. They are fair quality, and lightyears ahead of Junk Blaster. Some of the M Audio interface/preamps are very budget priced. Some have high impedance inputs so you can record guitar direct if you prefer to do that instead of mic'ing your amp.

My setup consists of separate mic preamps from focusrite, Joe Meek, Trident, TL Audio and Presonus, which I connect to MOTU 2408 mk3 and 1296 interfaces. That's a fairly well-equipped home studio setup, and I got enough stuff to be able to mic a whole drum set. More than what you probably need now and more than I coudl afford when I was your age.

Do you have a Mackie or similar mixer? The mic preamps in the mixer could be used, and you'd just have to add a recording interface.

As for the SM57, I will agree that it is a must have mic. However, a lot of articles I've read recommend combining a close mic like the SM 57 with a condenser mic set up further back. That does introduce phase problems, but with modern recording software, you can correct those.

I did this on the demo my band recently recorded. I noticed that the SM57 sounded bright and edgy, which helped the guitar cut through, but the SM57's lower mids and bottom were very thin. The second mic really filled out the lower midrange, giving distorted guitars a nice beefy tone that was missing from the tracks done with the SM57. When mixing you can pan the track from one mic left and th eother right, or position them in the same spot, but watch out for phase problems. I was actually able to slide one track forward or back slightly so they lined up and the phase problems went away. Modern DAW's are wonderful!

I also experimented with combining the SM 57 with the large diaphragm dynamic mic that I have, the Stedman N90. I got excellent results!! The N90 has a warm high end, where the SM57 is bright and edgy. And the N90 has a beefy, full low end, where the SM57 sounds thin. The N90 really added the chunk factor while the SM57's added the sizzle. They complimented each other very well and because I set them both up as close mics, I had no phase problems to even worry about.

I heartily second the recommendation to try the Heil PR30 mic. From what I've read about it, it sounds like it should do the same thing the N90 and the Groove Tubes condenser mic that I used did for me - beef up and fatten the guitar tone. When my budget allows, I wanna try the Heil mic myself. I also don't have the budget for a Royer ribbon mic, but with these mics that I have I can get great results.

I also have a pair of Sennheiser e609's and I was able to compare them to my SM57's. My e609's are the old black ones, not the newer silver ones. From what guys in this thread have said, it sounds like the silver ones (I assume that's what they're using since they're more common) suck. Between my black face e609's and the SM57's I really don't hear a difference. They sound very alike. Bright and edgy but thin.

On some tracks I did end up using just the SM57. Certain clean tracks where I wanted a sparkly sound without a full low end sounded great with just an SM57 or an e609. Some of the distorted parts where there were multiple guitars and I needed them each to take up a smaller sonic space rather than all sounding huge and getting in each others way worked better with just an SM57 or e609.

Good luck CG and have fun experimenting!
And read up on how to set up your home studio before you go just buying gear that you might not need. Find out what you need, and what is out there that best suits your needs.

 

[Diego]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

Wow Kosh, thank you for your time. That was very helpful! Eventually I'll bite the bullet and buy a nice condenser mic like the Sennheiser 427 or the N90 you suggested. But for now, I'll just buy a 57... and a mic preamp of some sort. Can't afford anything else for now.

Thank you all people!

 

[Gearjoneser]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

Before you buy new, put up a local wanted ad. There's SO many people that own them, that you can always find one for $50-$60. They're almost indestructible, so if it's fairly clean, it'll be just fine.

People don't always list them for sale, but if you put out a wanted ad, you'll get calls.
I think I sold one to Flank for $50....I had about 4 or 5 of them.

 

[LeeT4321]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

I've had pretty good recordings with an SM58. Great for recording or live vocals, micing drums, and not too bad for guitar. Although, it is a 4-track tape recorder I record with. But I've actually had some trouble micing acoustics with the 58, you really need to find the sweet spot which is hard to do.
.... comparision between the sm58 and sm57?

 

[kevlar3000]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

I've had pretty good recordings with an SM58. Great for recording or live vocals, micing drums, and not too bad for guitar. Although, it is a 4-track tape recorder I record with. But I've actually had some trouble micing acoustics with the 58, you really need to find the sweet spot which is hard to do.
.... comparision between the sm58 and sm57?

Robin Trower uses the 58 for guitars, set a few feet back.

 

[Diego]

Re: Shure SM57: Pro and Cons?

Yeah, I'd appreciate if you guys could dig a bit deeper comparing the Shure SM58 with the SM57.

You could say I'm mostly a high gain player, but I'd also appreciate if my tone wasn't always, all the time "in your face" which I think it's what the SM57 does best. I'd like to record thicker, bigger and more open tones. Will the 58 do that? Or I should just settle with the 57 till the wallet gets a bit thicker?