Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Microphone, preamp and recording.

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 12:54:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi,

I've played the guitar for near on 10 years now but the songs I record
just sound poor. This is becuase I'm often using a line out etc
plugged straight into my pc. Its ok for clean (heard something about
reverb makes it ok) but when I record distortion is too flat and
sounds poor (no reverb or dynamics to it I suppose). But lady luck
has thrown me some money and I can splash out on some more proper
equipment.

So, I really want to get into a microphone etc. I heard the shure
sm57 is the best for its money on its price range and will do they
job. But someone mentioned to me about preamp for it. They said it
will not really work plugging the microphone directly into the
soundcard, I bought a m audiophile 24/96 a few years back (sounds good
enough but a little quite).

So, do I need a pre amp? and if so can anyone suggest any makes and
models that would work well with the shure sm57?- because I know
nothing about this area of music. Budget wise doesnt really matter, I
dont want a cheap preamp, but I dont want to pay for a top of the
range expenive one. Sort of like the shure sm57, good qualtiy and
moderatly priced. (if the shure is dodgey mic then any suggestions
are much welcome about mic's)

So really, this will only be used for guitar, recording a mix of
styles (heavy metal, blues, laid back clean, jazz etc) being placed
infront of a standard tuba amp.

Thanks for any help in advance, it will be most appreciated.

Jon.
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 6:12:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <a68d4d43.0409050754.1f2ba545@posting.google.com> mmm_moo_cows@hotmail.com writes:

> I've played the guitar for near on 10 years now but the songs I record
> just sound poor. This is becuase I'm often using a line out etc
> plugged straight into my pc.

> So, I really want to get into a microphone etc. I heard the shure
> sm57 is the best for its money on its price range and will do they
> job. But someone mentioned to me about preamp for it. They said it
> will not really work plugging the microphone directly into the
> soundcard, I bought a m audiophile 24/96 a few years back (sounds good
> enough but a little quite).
>
> So, do I need a pre amp?

Yes. The Audiophile card has the proper input sensitivity for a "line"
level, and you need to amplify the "mic" level in order to match a
microphone up to the card. This is what a mic preamplifier does.

> and if so can anyone suggest any makes and
> models that would work well with the shure sm57?

This is such an open question. The best mic preamp I've used with an
SM57 is a Great River MP2, but that costs over $2,000 so I don't
imagine you're quite ready for that sort of investment. (it's also the
best mic preamp I've used with many other mics I own, some of which
are worth more than the preamp, thank goodness).

I think you'll find that using any decent microphone will be such a
significant improvement over plugging directly into your sound card
that you really don't need to worry about which preamp is the best.
You might want to look into the very reasonably priced Studio Projects
VTB-1.

There are many other microphones that you could use, but the SM57 is
probably not a bad first mic for using on a guitar amplifier. It may
not always be the best, but it's certainly one of the standard choices
of many engineers.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 7:58:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mmm_moo_cows" <mmm_moo_cows@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a68d4d43.0409050754.1f2ba545@posting.google.com...

> So, I really want to get into a microphone etc. I heard the shure
> sm57 is the best for its money on its price range and will do they
> job.

The 57 is a good choice for your first microphone.


> So, do I need a pre amp?

Yes


>and if so can anyone suggest any makes and
> models that would work well with the shure sm57?-

I'd probably go ahead and buy a small mixer, from mackie or soundcraft. You
may not need more than one preamp, but you could easily spend as much on a
single pre and not get any appreciable difference in sound quality. Having a
mixer with a PC setup helps greatly with monitoring as well - you can run
the mix back into the mixer, bypass any latency issues you may have, and
monitor with headphones while you record. It is also easy to adjust
monitoring levels with a mixer.

You might also appreciate those extra pres when you want another 57 to mic
in stereo.

jb.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 8:23:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Shure probably makes a nice little 4 input preamp mixer.

Bob

"Mmm_moo_cows" <mmm_moo_cows@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a68d4d43.0409050754.1f2ba545@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
>
> I've played the guitar for near on 10 years now but the songs I record
> just sound poor. This is becuase I'm often using a line out etc
> plugged straight into my pc. Its ok for clean (heard something about
> reverb makes it ok) but when I record distortion is too flat and
> sounds poor (no reverb or dynamics to it I suppose). But lady luck
> has thrown me some money and I can splash out on some more proper
> equipment.
>
> So, I really want to get into a microphone etc. I heard the shure
> sm57 is the best for its money on its price range and will do they
> job. But someone mentioned to me about preamp for it. They said it
> will not really work plugging the microphone directly into the
> soundcard, I bought a m audiophile 24/96 a few years back (sounds good
> enough but a little quite).
>
> So, do I need a pre amp? and if so can anyone suggest any makes and
> models that would work well with the shure sm57?- because I know
> nothing about this area of music. Budget wise doesnt really matter, I
> dont want a cheap preamp, but I dont want to pay for a top of the
> range expenive one. Sort of like the shure sm57, good qualtiy and
> moderatly priced. (if the shure is dodgey mic then any suggestions
> are much welcome about mic's)
>
> So really, this will only be used for guitar, recording a mix of
> styles (heavy metal, blues, laid back clean, jazz etc) being placed
> infront of a standard tuba amp.
>
> Thanks for any help in advance, it will be most appreciated.
>
> Jon.
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 8:52:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< (if the shure is dodgey mic then any suggestions
are much welcome about mic's) >>

No, the SM57 isn't dodgy at all for use on guitar amps. Guys who have access to
$5,000 mics still use SM57s a lot. Since I mostly record jazz guitarists, the
SM57 is a bit thin for the dark Wes Montgomerish jazz sound, but it's fine for
rock. Another good mic for amps is the Sennheiser MD609. It's different, not
better or worse, a little more rounded, slightly rolled off in the upper mids,
costs a few bucks more than the SM57. Moving up the price scale, the Sennheiser
MD421 is my current first pick mic for guitar amps.
Yes, you will need a preamp to boost the mic signal up to line level.


Scott Fraser
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 8:54:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< So really, this will only be used for guitar, recording a mix of
styles (heavy metal, blues, laid back clean, jazz etc) being placed
infront of a standard tuba amp. >>

Heh heh, I love typos. Gives you stuff you could never come up with otherwise.
<g>


Scott Fraser
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 10:07:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mmm_moo_cows" <mmm_moo_cows@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a68d4d43.0409050754.1f2ba545@posting.google.com

> So, I really want to get into a microphone etc. I heard the shure
> sm57 is the best for its money on its price range and will do they
> job.

Howevcer, it's not a very good vocal mic. You don't say you need one, but it
seems like sooner or later everybody wants to talk or speak into a recorder.

> But someone mentioned to me about preamp for it. They said it
> will not really work plugging the microphone directly into the
> soundcard, I bought a m audiophile 24/96 a few years back (sounds good
> enough but a little quite).

The best cheap but good way to handle this is a small, cheap mixer. If all
you're ever going to use at one time is one mic, then the Behringer UB502
will get the job done for under $50.
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 1:54:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

sycochkn wrote:

> Shure probably makes a nice little 4 input preamp mixer.

Behringer *definitely* make one for likely a *tiny* fraction of what a Shure
mixer would cost with way better specs and more features.

Shure are *not* a great mixer maker.

Graham
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 7:02:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 5 Sep 2004 08:54:25 -0700, mmm_moo_cows@hotmail.com (Mmm_moo_cows)
wrote:

>So, do I need a pre amp? and if so can anyone suggest any makes and
>models that would work well with the shure sm57?

For $100 Yamaha sells a little mixer with four mic inputs (with
P48 phantom) and *no* bells or whistles. It's maybe not quite a
Mackie, but it works fine. I've carried ours out of town and
done some light SR for a small opera orchestra with no complaints.
And I complain a lot.

Chris Hornbeck
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 7:06:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jon whote

I've played the guitar for near on 10 years now but the songs I record
just sound poor. This is becuase I'm often using a line out etc
plugged straight into my pc. Its ok for clean (heard something about
reverb makes it ok) but when I record distortion is too flat and
sounds poor (no reverb or dynamics to it I suppose). But lady luck
has thrown me some money and I can splash out on some more proper
equipment.

So, I really want to get into a microphone etc. I heard the shure
sm57 is the best for its money on its price range and will do they
job. But someone mentioned to me about preamp for it. They said it
will not really work plugging the microphone directly into the
soundcard, I bought a m audiophile 24/96 a few years back (sounds good
enough but a little quite).

So, do I need a pre amp? and if so can anyone suggest any makes and
models that would work well with the shure sm57?- because I know
nothing about this area of music. Budget wise doesnt really matter, I
dont want a cheap preamp, but I dont want to pay for a top of the
range expenive one. Sort of like the shure sm57, good qualtiy and
moderatly priced. (if the shure is dodgey mic then any suggestions
are much welcome about mic's)

So really, this will only be used for guitar, recording a mix of
styles (heavy metal, blues, laid back clean, jazz etc) being placed
infront of a standard tuba amp.

Thanks for any help in advance, it will be most appreciated.



Yes, an SM57 will do a bang up job on a rocknroll guitar. Sennheiser 421 is
another all around mic to. There are some other things to think about when your
recording a guitar to like.. mic placement and even what the room your in
sounds like.
I can't really teach you (or anyone) in less than say...5-10 years on how I got
to where I'm at today (and I'm still learning). If you want to try a long wide
hallway or an empty room with some wood wall's (or maybe partly wood) you may
get an OK sound.
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 8:03:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> << So really, this will only be used for guitar, recording a mix of
> styles (heavy metal, blues, laid back clean, jazz etc) being placed
> infront of a standard tuba amp. >>
>

Haha, doh!
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 9:10:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< Howevcer, it's not a very good vocal mic. >>

With the foam windscreen a 57 can be a perfectly decent vocal mic.

Scott Fraser
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 9:43:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"ScotFraser" <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040906011015.01064.00000154@mb-m26.aol.com
> << Howevcer, it's not a very good vocal mic. >>
>
> With the foam windscreen a 57 can be a perfectly decent vocal mic.

Been there done that, so I'm intimately familiar with the slings and arrows
of doing that.

I would say that most if not merely many people consider being held in the
hand as a common mode of operation for hand held microphones.

The SM57 has no internal shock mounting.
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 10:35:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

ScotFraser wrote:

> << Howevcer, it's not a very good vocal mic. >>
>
> With the foam windscreen a 57 can be a perfectly decent vocal mic.
>
> Scott Fraser

Please advise. How does the foam help an SM57 be decent ? I'm sure it
stops the obvious P's etc.. but that applies to any mic.


Graham
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 10:59:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< Please advise. How does the foam help an SM57 be decent ?>>

Cuts the pops. It sounds like a better 58.

<< I'm sure it
stops the obvious P's etc.. but that applies to any mic. >>

Lots of mics specifically intended for vocals have a built in pop filter. The
57 doesn't, which is why I recommend adding one.


Scott Fraser
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 7:37:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

For an inexpensive preamp, try the Presonus TubePre or the Studio Projects
VTB1.

Since you are all over the map as far as musical styles below, you may
consider different amplifiers, or a least a good EQ.


"Mmm_moo_cows" <mmm_moo_cows@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a68d4d43.0409050754.1f2ba545@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
>
> I've played the guitar for near on 10 years now but the songs I record
> just sound poor. This is becuase I'm often using a line out etc
> plugged straight into my pc. Its ok for clean (heard something about
> reverb makes it ok) but when I record distortion is too flat and
> sounds poor (no reverb or dynamics to it I suppose). But lady luck
> has thrown me some money and I can splash out on some more proper
> equipment.
>
> So, I really want to get into a microphone etc. I heard the shure
> sm57 is the best for its money on its price range and will do they
> job. But someone mentioned to me about preamp for it. They said it
> will not really work plugging the microphone directly into the
> soundcard, I bought a m audiophile 24/96 a few years back (sounds good
> enough but a little quite).
>
> So, do I need a pre amp? and if so can anyone suggest any makes and
> models that would work well with the shure sm57?- because I know
> nothing about this area of music. Budget wise doesnt really matter, I
> dont want a cheap preamp, but I dont want to pay for a top of the
> range expenive one. Sort of like the shure sm57, good qualtiy and
> moderatly priced. (if the shure is dodgey mic then any suggestions
> are much welcome about mic's)
>
> So really, this will only be used for guitar, recording a mix of
> styles (heavy metal, blues, laid back clean, jazz etc) being placed
> infront of a standard tuba amp.
>
> Thanks for any help in advance, it will be most appreciated.
>
> Jon.
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 8:14:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< I would say that most if not merely many people consider being held in the
hand as a common mode of operation for hand held microphones. The SM57 has no
internal shock mounting.
>>

If one has mic handling noise in ones recordings, I'd call that improper
operation of the equipment.


Scott Fraser
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 9:50:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"ScotFraser" <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040906025911.09347.00000357@mb-m05.aol.com...
> << Please advise. How does the foam help an SM57 be decent ?>>
>
> Cuts the pops. It sounds like a better 58.
>
> << I'm sure it
> stops the obvious P's etc.. but that applies to any mic. >>
>
> Lots of mics specifically intended for vocals have a built in pop filter.
The
> 57 doesn't, which is why I recommend adding one.

And that makes it better to the SM58 how exactly, In Your Opinion?
Shure offer you the choice already.

TonyP.
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 9:50:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:413c16f3$0$28793$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
> "ScotFraser" <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040906025911.09347.00000357@mb-m05.aol.com...
>> << Please advise. How does the foam help an SM57 be decent ?>>
>>
>> Cuts the pops. It sounds like a better 58.
>>
>> << I'm sure it
>> stops the obvious P's etc.. but that applies to any mic. >>
>>
>> Lots of mics specifically intended for vocals have a built in pop
>> filter. The 57 doesn't, which is why I recommend adding one.
>
> And that makes it better to the SM58 how exactly, In Your Opinion?
> Shure offer you the choice already.

Good point given that the SM58 has internal shock mounting.
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 9:50:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <413c16f3$0$28793$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> TonyP@optus.net.com.au writes:

> > << Please advise. How does the foam help an SM57 be decent ?>>

> And that makes it better to the SM58 how exactly, In Your Opinion?
> Shure offer you the choice already.

A foam windscreen doesn't always eliminate pops (in fact it usually
doesn't, unless they're very slight) but it does change the high
frequency response a bit, and in the case of the SM57, smooths it out
a bit. In any case, it's a different sound than an SM58.

So with an SM57 and foam windscreen (and maybe even a real pop filter)
you have a mic that's easy to change to a different sound. About the
only thing you can do with an SM58 to change it is to remove the
"ball" which significantly changes what the designers were working
with. You might like what it sounds like, but you might find that an
SM57 sounds like that but better.

The fact that an SM58 is better for hand-held use due to its balance
and internal shock isolation is a distinct advantage for stage use where
hand-holding a vocal mic is more common than in the studio. However,
if the vocalist feels more comfortable in the studio when hand-holding
his mic, an SM58 there may be a better choice.

Or not. In the end, it all depends on the voice you're recording and
what you consider a good sound for that voice in that song.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 9:50:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< And that makes it better to the SM58 how exactly, In Your Opinion?>>

It is more open, has less of the muddy buildup in the 150 to 200 Hz region, in
my opinion.

<<Shure offer you the choice already.>>

They make quite a number of choices. We were discussing a guy's plan to buy a
mic for his guitar amp, & it was suggested he could also sing into whatever mic
he purchased.

Scott Fraser
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 9:50:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< > And that makes it better to the SM58 how exactly, In Your Opinion?
> Shure offer you the choice already.>

<Good point given that the SM58 has internal shock mounting.
>>

Handling noise shouldn't be an issue in a recording situation. I'm saying the
57 SOUNDS better than a 58 as a vocal mic. Yes, this is my opinion.



Scott Fraser
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 9:50:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"ScotFraser" <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040906122409.09558.00000242@mb-m26.aol.com...
> Handling noise shouldn't be an issue in a recording situation. I'm saying
the
> 57 SOUNDS better than a 58 as a vocal mic. Yes, this is my opinion.

The 57 has the "internal shock mount" too.
Some of us have been rolling our eyes since the 58 was first introduced in
the late 1960s. The ball is a sales gimmick that screwed up the sound of a
great sounding mike, didn't help that much with pops and dramatically
increased a performer's risk of injury from electrical shock on stage.


--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 9:50:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bob Olhsson" <olh@hyperback.com> wrote in message
news:8V0%c.317954$OB3.148681@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "ScotFraser" <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040906122409.09558.00000242@mb-m26.aol.com...
>> Handling noise shouldn't be an issue in a recording situation. I'm
>> saying the 57 SOUNDS better than a 58 as a vocal mic. Yes, this is
>> my opinion.
>
> The 57 has the "internal shock mount" too.

I've got a SM57 in pieces. It looked like someone stepped on it and then
twisted everything every which way but loose. Contrary to some popular
beliefs, SM57s do not appear to be totally indestructable.

I see nothing resilient between the mic capsule and the body of a mic,
unless you consider a fairily long steel sheet metal screw to be part of a
"resilient mount".

Since this baby is slagged, tell me where to find something resilient, and
I'll go looking for it with a hacksaw!
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 10:20:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi,

Thanks, and thanks everyone else as well got quite alot ot look into
now. I've got pretty much everything I'll need on the guitar side of
things (many hours of summer overtime in a factory over the last few
years), except maybe a compression pedal, looking into the electro
harmonix one, cant remember what its called now. So on the guitar side
of things I'm sorted, I just having a tough time conveying the
sound/tone/quality of what I have into a recording. And some people
might know how it is, after 10+ years of playing I'm getting fed up of
rattling out the same old songs and writing songs but never completing
them so to record and finish properly sounds much more of an enjoyable
challenge at the moment. The mic I suppose is the big one.

Thanks, Jon
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 12:47:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

aaahhhmmm.....and Behringer is??? I think the world is coming to an
end, or at least good sounding audio if this keeps up.
----------------------------------------------------

From: rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com (Pooh Bear)

Behringer *definitely* make one for likely a *tiny* fraction of what a
Shure mixer would cost with way better specs and more features.

Shure are *not* a great mixer maker.
Graham



Twist Turner
http://tinyurl.com/ul70
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 3:22:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <413c16f3$0$28793$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote:

> "ScotFraser" <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040906025911.09347.00000357@mb-m05.aol.com...

> > Lots of mics specifically intended for vocals have a built in pop filter.
> The
> > 57 doesn't, which is why I recommend adding one.
>
> And that makes it better to the SM58 how exactly, In Your Opinion?
> Shure offer you the choice already.

A 57 with a pop screen has a different low end response than a 58. The
57 is less rolled off, and more versatile IMHO. That'd be why I'd vote
for the 58...


Regards,

Monte McGuire
monte.mcguire@verizon.net
Anonymous
September 8, 2004 8:47:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1094470824k@trad...
> In article <413c16f3$0$28793$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>
TonyP@optus.net.com.au writes:
> A foam windscreen doesn't always eliminate pops (in fact it usually
> doesn't, unless they're very slight) but it does change the high
> frequency response a bit, and in the case of the SM57, smooths it out
> a bit. In any case, it's a different sound than an SM58.
>
> So with an SM57 and foam windscreen (and maybe even a real pop filter)
> you have a mic that's easy to change to a different sound. About the
> only thing you can do with an SM58 to change it is to remove the
> "ball" which significantly changes what the designers were working
> with. You might like what it sounds like, but you might find that an
> SM57 sounds like that but better.
>
> The fact that an SM58 is better for hand-held use due to its balance
> and internal shock isolation is a distinct advantage for stage use where
> hand-holding a vocal mic is more common than in the studio. However,
> if the vocalist feels more comfortable in the studio when hand-holding
> his mic, an SM58 there may be a better choice.


While I agree with your general thrust, I don't find the differences between
an SM57 with a windscreen Vs SM58, or an SM58 without ball Vs an SM57, to be
worth worrying about too much. Not when a dozen other mics will give me a
much bigger difference.
Even SM57's or SM58's sound different depending on when and where they were
made IME.

As for hand holding of mics, I don't see the need in a studio anyway. On
stage, I can't see much benefit in using an SM57 for vocal either.

TonyP.
Anonymous
September 8, 2004 8:47:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <413eab0a$0$22460$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote:
> While I agree with your general thrust, I don't find the differences between
> an SM57 with a windscreen Vs SM58, or an SM58 without ball Vs an SM57, to be
> worth worrying about too much. Not when a dozen other mics will give me a
> much bigger difference.
> Even SM57's or SM58's sound different depending on when and where they were
> made IME.

Point taken, all though I find these LF differences to be somewhat
important when doing live sound (in my limited world). If someone
throws 58s on a drum kit or amps as opposed to 57s, it sorta does matter
to me re. how much LF EQ I'll need. That's the only point I wanted to
make really... the low end in a drum miking or bass amp context is quite
different with 58s and 57s. Not such a biggie with vocals or guitars,
but if you're concerned with 100Hz on down, there is a noticeable
difference.

> As for hand holding of mics, I don't see the need in a studio anyway. On
> stage, I can't see much benefit in using an SM57 for vocal either.

I do think the lack of a ball makes a 57 sound a tiny bit better, but I
usually prefer far better mikes than an SM58/57 anyway for stage vocals,
so either is going to annoy me most of the time.


Regards,

Monte McGuire
monte.mcguire@verizon.net
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 7:25:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< On
stage, I can't see much benefit in using an SM57 for vocal either. >>

The benefit is that any artist in the world can specify an SM57 in a tech rider
& know that a known sound will be delivered, no matter where they go. That
alone is actually worth something.

Scott Fraser
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 7:39:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"ScotFraser" <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040908232514.20060.00002036@mb-m25.aol.com...
> << On
> stage, I can't see much benefit in using an SM57 for vocal either. >>
>
> The benefit is that any artist in the world can specify an SM57 in a tech
rider
> & know that a known sound will be delivered, no matter where they go. That
> alone is actually worth something.

Never seen it myself, they always specify SM-58 here.
Are you getting the two confused?

TonyP.
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 7:39:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:413feca9$0$2739$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

> Never seen it myself, they always specify SM-58 here.
> Are you getting the two confused?
>
Nope - I've seen a number of riders which specify 57's all over the place,
including vocals. The artist MAY pull them down once they arrive (assuming
that their own vocal mics have arrived safely), but you know that 57's will
work. (I personally would also specify the windscreens, but that's just me.)

--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 7:39:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <413feca9$0$2739$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
TonyP <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote:
>
>"ScotFraser" <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040908232514.20060.00002036@mb-m25.aol.com...
>> << On
>> stage, I can't see much benefit in using an SM57 for vocal either. >>
>>
>> The benefit is that any artist in the world can specify an SM57 in a tech
>rider
>> & know that a known sound will be delivered, no matter where they go. That
>> alone is actually worth something.
>
>Never seen it myself, they always specify SM-58 here.
>Are you getting the two confused?

I see both of them. I've even seen SM-81s on riders, too.
I have never, never seen an RE-16 in a rider, but I have also never
had anyone turn one down.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 9:08:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>Never seen it myself, they always specify SM-58 here.
>Are you getting the two confused?

Not confused. As engineer at one of LA's major performing arts centers, I used
to have a lot of riders pass through my hands. I'm not saying a preponderance
specified 57s for vocals, but it was by no means rare.

Scott Fraser
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 12:39:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:chpo51$egl$1@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <413feca9$0$2739$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> TonyP <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote:
> >Never seen it myself, they always specify SM-58 here.
> >Are you getting the two confused?
>
> I see both of them. I've even seen SM-81s on riders, too.
> I have never, never seen an RE-16 in a rider, but I have also never
> had anyone turn one down.

Never seen anyone turn down a KMS105 either :-)

TonyP.
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 12:39:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

TonyP <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:chpo51$egl$1@panix2.panix.com...
>> In article <413feca9$0$2739$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
>> TonyP <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote:
>> >Never seen it myself, they always specify SM-58 here.
>> >Are you getting the two confused?
>>
>> I see both of them. I've even seen SM-81s on riders, too.
>> I have never, never seen an RE-16 in a rider, but I have also never
>> had anyone turn one down.
>
>Never seen anyone turn down a KMS105 either :-)

I have! Not only that, I have had someone turn down a KMS105 in favor of
an SM-58, because it was "too directional" for them. Don't ask me where
these people come from.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 12:39:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:4141848b$0$1984$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> Never seen anyone turn down a KMS105 either :-)
>
I sure have.

--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 12:39:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>I have! Not only that, I have had someone turn down a KMS105 in favor of
>an SM-58, because it was "too directional" for them. Don't ask me where
>these people come from.
>--scott
>--

Might be the Williamsburg Mental Hospital.
:>)
Maybe out on work release.

--Wayne

-"sounded good to me"-
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 12:52:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Dave Martin" <dmainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jnZ%c.13878$Vl5.1692@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
> news:413feca9$0$2739$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > Never seen it myself, they always specify SM-58 here.
> > Are you getting the two confused?
> >
> Nope - I've seen a number of riders which specify 57's all over the place,
> including vocals.

OK.

>The artist MAY pull them down once they arrive (assuming
> that their own vocal mics have arrived safely),

That's something that's always amazed me, it's pretty rare for a guitarist
to turn up without a guitar, and nearly as rare for a vocalist to turn up
*with* a mic IME.
A decent mic is cheaper an easier to carry, but many don't bother, even a
lot I would have expected to.

TonyP.
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 3:31:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger"
> "Bob Olhsson"
> >
> > The 57 has the "internal shock mount" too.
>
>
> I've got a SM57 in pieces. It looked like someone stepped on it and then
> twisted everything every which way but loose. Contrary to some popular
> beliefs, SM57s do not appear to be totally indestructable.
>

** Drummers break the plastic top caps off 57s constantly.

57s are notoriously fragile - 58s are the tough ones.


> I see nothing resilient between the mic capsule and the body of a mic,
> unless you consider a fairily long steel sheet metal screw to be part of
a
> "resilient mount".
>


** There is no "sheet metal" screw in either mic.

57s and 58s have identical rubber shock mounting arrangements with a long
8-32 metal thread down the centre.





............. Phil
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 3:31:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:2qdokvFuk7ieU1@uni-berlin.de
> "Arny Krueger"
>> "Bob Olhsson"
>>>
>>> The 57 has the "internal shock mount" too.
>>
>>
>> I've got a SM57 in pieces. It looked like someone stepped on it and
>> then twisted everything every which way but loose. Contrary to some
>> popular beliefs, SM57s do not appear to be totally indestructable.
>>
>
> ** Drummers break the plastic top caps off 57s constantly.
>
> 57s are notoriously fragile - 58s are the tough ones.
>
>
>> I see nothing resilient between the mic capsule and the body of a
>> mic, unless you consider a fairily long steel sheet metal screw to
>> be part of a "resilient mount".
>>
>
>
> ** There is no "sheet metal" screw in either mic.

My error - its a machine screw.

>
> 57s and 58s have identical rubber shock mounting arrangements with a
> long 8-32 metal thread down the centre.


It's very stiff compared to competitive vocal mics.
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 2:50:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger"
> "Phil Allison"

> >>>
> >>> The 57 has the "internal shock mount" too.
> >>
> >>
> >> I've got a SM57 in pieces. It looked like someone stepped on it and
> >> then twisted everything every which way but loose. Contrary to some
> >> popular beliefs, SM57s do not appear to be totally indestructable.
> >>
> >
> > ** Drummers break the plastic top caps off 57s constantly.
> >
> > 57s are notoriously fragile - 58s are the tough ones.
> >
> >
> >> I see nothing resilient between the mic capsule and the body of a
> >> mic, unless you consider a fairily long steel sheet metal screw to
> >> be part of a "resilient mount".
> >>
> >
> > ** There is no "sheet metal" screw in either mic.
>
> My error - its a machine screw.
>
> >
> > 57s and 58s have identical rubber shock mounting arrangements with a
> > long 8-32 metal thread down the centre.
>
>
> It's very stiff compared to competitive vocal mics.
>


** Similar to most and quite effective.

Just not enough to please an anti Shure bigot.




.......... Phil
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 2:50:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:2qf0f6Fud7ipU1@uni-berlin.de
> "Arny Krueger"

>> It's very stiff compared to competitive vocal mics.

> ** Similar to most and quite effective.

Let's put it this way, I had no trouble finding mics that were far more
resistent to handling noise than SM 57s.

> Just not enough to please an anti Shure bigot.

I'm such an anti-Shure bigot that I own a number of Shure mics, earphones,
and phono cartridges. I just bought a UC-series wireless mic for my church.
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 3:48:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger"
> "Phil Allison"

>
> >> It's very stiff compared to competitive vocal mics.
>
> > ** Similar to most and quite effective.
>
> Let's put it this way, I had no trouble finding mics that were far more
> resistent to handling noise than SM 57s.


** So you say - but even so does not conflict with my comment.


> > Just not enough to please an anti Shure bigot.
>
> I'm such an anti-Shure bigot that I own a number of Shure mics, earphones,
> and phono cartridges. I just bought a UC-series wireless mic for my
church.
>


** So you are just an anti Shure SM 57, SM 58 paranoiac.

Your harping on their non existent flaws is tantamount to racism.



............ Phil
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 3:48:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:2qf3rqFuj5paU1@uni-berlin.de
> "Arny Krueger"
>> "Phil Allison"
>
>>
>>>> It's very stiff compared to competitive vocal mics.
>>
>>> ** Similar to most and quite effective.
>>
>> Let's put it this way, I had no trouble finding mics that were far
>> more resistent to handling noise than SM 57s.

> ** So you say - but even so does not conflict with my comment.

There are so many different mics that its unlikely that either of us can
claim to have detailed intimate experience with a statistically significant
sample of them. All I know is that I ran a half dozen SM57s as vocal mics,
and made a lot of people happy by replacing them with something else.
Handing noise was part of the improvement. Sound quality was part of the
improvement.

>>> Just not enough to please an anti Shure bigot.
>>
>> I'm such an anti-Shure bigot that I own a number of Shure mics,
>> earphones, and phono cartridges. I just bought a UC-series wireless
>> mic for my church.

> ** So you are just an anti Shure SM 57, SM 58 paranoiac.

Wrong again.

> Your harping on their non existent flaws is tantamount to racism.

Everything is flawed, its just a matter of priorities.
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 3:48:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny,

As Doctor Phil (the one on TV, not the Philbot on rap) might ask, What's the
payoff for answering any of the Philbots posts when you already know it will
end up badly?

Regards,

Ty Ford






On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 07:13:49 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <pqudnQ96-5PEQ9_cRVn-iw@comcast.com>):

> "Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> news:2qf3rqFuj5paU1@uni-berlin.de
>> "Arny Krueger"
>>> "Phil Allison"
>>
>>>
>>>>> It's very stiff compared to competitive vocal mics.
>>>
>>>> ** Similar to most and quite effective.
>>>
>>> Let's put it this way, I had no trouble finding mics that were far
>>> more resistent to handling noise than SM 57s.
>
>> ** So you say - but even so does not conflict with my comment.
>
> There are so many different mics that its unlikely that either of us can
> claim to have detailed intimate experience with a statistically significant
> sample of them. All I know is that I ran a half dozen SM57s as vocal mics,
> and made a lot of people happy by replacing them with something else.
> Handing noise was part of the improvement. Sound quality was part of the
> improvement.
>
>>>> Just not enough to please an anti Shure bigot.
>>>
>>> I'm such an anti-Shure bigot that I own a number of Shure mics,
>>> earphones, and phono cartridges. I just bought a UC-series wireless
>>> mic for my church.
>
>> ** So you are just an anti Shure SM 57, SM 58 paranoiac.
>
> Wrong again.
>
>> Your harping on their non existent flaws is tantamount to racism.
>
> Everything is flawed, its just a matter of priorities.
>
>
>
>



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 11:40:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi, why don't you try the Mesa/Boogie Recto pre if you can audition it in
your area?
"Mmm_moo_cows" <mmm_moo_cows@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a68d4d43.0409050754.1f2ba545@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
>
> I've played the guitar for near on 10 years now but the songs I record
> just sound poor. This is becuase I'm often using a line out etc
> plugged straight into my pc. Its ok for clean (heard something about
> reverb makes it ok) but when I record distortion is too flat and
> sounds poor (no reverb or dynamics to it I suppose). But lady luck
> has thrown me some money and I can splash out on some more proper
> equipment.
>
> So, I really want to get into a microphone etc. I heard the shure
> sm57 is the best for its money on its price range and will do they
> job. But someone mentioned to me about preamp for it. They said it
> will not really work plugging the microphone directly into the
> soundcard, I bought a m audiophile 24/96 a few years back (sounds good
> enough but a little quite).
>
> So, do I need a pre amp? and if so can anyone suggest any makes and
> models that would work well with the shure sm57?- because I know
> nothing about this area of music. Budget wise doesnt really matter, I
> dont want a cheap preamp, but I dont want to pay for a top of the
> range expenive one. Sort of like the shure sm57, good qualtiy and
> moderatly priced. (if the shure is dodgey mic then any suggestions
> are much welcome about mic's)
>
> So really, this will only be used for guitar, recording a mix of
> styles (heavy metal, blues, laid back clean, jazz etc) being placed
> infront of a standard tuba amp.
>
> Thanks for any help in advance, it will be most appreciated.
>
> Jon.
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 2:11:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger"
> "Phil Allison"

> >>>> It's very stiff compared to competitive vocal mics.
>>
> >>> ** Similar to most and quite effective.
> >>
> >> Let's put it this way, I had no trouble finding mics that were far
> >> more resistant to handling noise than SM 57s.
>
> > ** So you say - but even so does not conflict with my comment.
>
> There are so many different mics that its unlikely that either of us can
claim to have detailed intimate experience with a statistically significant
> sample of them.


** Certainly not a novice like you - Arny.

OTOH I have 34 years experience with such matters.

The set of all mics is not at issue as you falsely declared - only
popular vocal mics.

More desperate use of debating cheats from an incorrigible master of the
art.



> > ** So you are just an anti Shure SM 57, SM 58 paranoiac.
>
> Wrong again.


** Paranoid egomaniac bigots say shite like that.



> > Your harping on their non existent flaws is tantamount to racism.
>
> Everything is flawed, its just a matter of priorities.
>


** "Niggers are not perfect" - so it is cool to hate them.

Exact same logic.

The logic of a grade A racist pig.

The cap fits.



............. Phil
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 4:21:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Dave Martin" <dmainc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c6j0d.302$az6.2@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4141848b$0$1984$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >
> > Never seen anyone turn down a KMS105 either :-)
> >
> I sure have.

That's sad.
At least I can be thankful I haven't come across the people you and Scott
have to put up with.

TonyP.
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 4:21:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:41430a0a$0$28793$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > > Never seen anyone turn down a KMS105 either :-)
> > >
> > I sure have.
>
> That's sad.
> At least I can be thankful I haven't come across the people you and Scott
> have to put up with.
>
Nope - in many cases, the voices simply didn't sound good on a 105. One band
I know tried the 105's and then bought the AT hand held condenser version
because it sounded better with those singers in that application. In at
least one other case, the band (and their FOH guys) had learned that 57's
and 58's could take the abuse the band did to the vocal mics. It's a lot
cheaper to replace 3 or 4 SM58's after every show than it is to replace 3 or
4 KMS 105's.

--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com
!