Mark IV SM57 vs. i5 shootout

[SeasonOfPain]

Hey gang,

I decided to do some recording with my new Mark IV combo. As I was trying to dial in a decent recorded tone, I noticed that all my recordings with the 57 were sounding extremely nasal and lacking any bottom end. I was attributing this to mic placement, and driving myself crazy trying endless experiments moving the mic in 1" increments, cursing my pre-amp, mic cables, even the amp itself.

Finally I decided to dig the Audix i5 out and try that. Instantly the low end that I was hearing while tracking was actually getting recorded.

Exactly the same mic placement, amp settings, preamp settings, guitar, and room were used for each; only the mic itself changed. Now I wonder if there's something wrong with the SM-57... should it really be sounding that different?

Please take a listen to the 2 samples, and tell me what you think:

i5 clip
SM-57 clip

The samples are unprocessed (except for conversion to MP3), so they're both a bit low in level.

What could be causing the discrepancy? Is the 57 damaged in some way?

 

[cliffdove]

What are ur amp settings, guitar and mic preamp used? the SM57 should capture the mid range and highs. And I think it'd be fair to actually find the best micking position for the 57 rather than use the same i5 settings.

Give left and right tracking a go with input levels in sequencer as hot as possible. It should give u a more favorable outcome.

 

[SeasonOfPain]

Thanks, cliffdove. Your advice is definitely valid; however, I don't think the two should sound *that* different when all other variables are the same. I've been literally trying for weeks to work solely with the 57, using different amp settings and mic positions. There's very little variation in the 57's tone; no matter what position I try on the speaker or what the amp settings are, they all seem to have only the midrange, as if a high-pass filter was on the mic (the raw recorded wav files exhibit this) I just decided on a whim to try the i5, and even without optimizing the i5's position it blows the 57 away.

I used to record solely with the 57 (I got the i5 some time ago just for variety), and it never used to be this hard to get a decent sound out of it. I haven't dropped the 57 or dome anything that would cause damage... the thing's just been sitting in my basement (zipped up in its pouch) when not used. I guess any kind of transducer can spontaneously fail, but it just seems weird.

I may need to find someone else's 57 to test with. However, I've wasted so much time already trying to get this particular mic to work...

 

[pd335]

the difference there is just amazing... its making me think I need to get another mic just to make sure I am not missing something using my 57...

 

[SeasonOfPain]

Well, I'm more concerned that my 57 is defective. I've heard great tones from others recorded with only a 57, and I certainly don't recall older recordings I did with that mic being so nasal sounding. I still think something's gone wrong with it, but I can't figure out what it could be (the mic has a reputation for being nearly indestructible).

That said, it would be interesting to hear an A/B comparison (same guitar, amp, and mic placement) from someone else.

 

[Platypus]

SM57 def sounds weird.. it sounds like its a few feet from the amp or something. Even in 'bad' positions I've never gotten it to sound like that before.

 

[BobL]

I think that first it's important to understand why the SM57 is considered a go to mic for sound reinforcement and the recording of instruments, specifically drums and guitar.

The SM57 has a long history of use brought about by 1. Price, 2. Size, 3. Availabilty, 4. Construction. Add all those features together and you have a mic that was brought to market at a time when there were few mics to choose from that could do the job in a tough environment for low dollars.

The SM57 is far and away NOT the best recording mic available for guitar sound reinforcement or recording. The SM57 is one of the most durable and low cost option available, but not the best sounding.

The SM57 is most often recommended blindly by people who aren't aware of the other options available, and who don't understand the SM57 short comings which are.

An advertised spec of 40hz to 15Khz coverage. A quick look at the Shure site illustrates the problem. Although the advertised coverage is accurate, the frequency response of the mic is not flat.

You stated a nasally sound and if you look at the Shure specs you'll see why. Response drops in excess of 10db at 200hz, and then RISES 6db starting at 2Khz.

Being that the human ear detects any change in sound level 3db or greater what you're hearing is the infamous Shure "hump", found in all of their low end mics.

To better understand this, any sound that is 3db down from that hump will require an output of 10 times greater power at the -3db frequency from the source to overcome the hump and provide flat frequency response. I doubt that you have 1000 watts available for the amps mids alone, and then, although the recording may sound better, the guitar tone you hear while recording will sound like trash. It's a catch 22.

So because that is not practical a good EQ must be used in the recording channel to alter the incoming signal and make up for the mics loss or gain in response.

In the studio or in live sound system response to the board is measured using pink noise and analysis tools such as Smaart and special microphones. If those are not available, a tone generator, DB meter and your ear can help set the incoming signal flat at the board.

Once the incoming signal is set flat you should start to hear a duplicate of the sound that you hear coming from your amp on your recording. But, the key is to insure that the incoming signal from your amp is NOT colored by the microphone, channel strip or effects to begin with. The single most influential piece of hardware in that signal chain is the mic.

Here's a good look at the infamous Shure "hump".

http://www.shure.com/stellent/groups/public/@gms_gmi_web_ug/documents/web_resource/us_pro_sm57_specsheet.pdf

The AUdix I5 on the other hand shows decent response with more of a mid range cut vs. high end hump. This mic should, and you proved that it does, have better recording characteristics than a 57, specifically with low end response and high end chime.

http://www.audixusa.com/audix/Acrobat/i5_spec_sheet.pdf

The best instrument and vocal mic in the $100 - $300 dollar price range right now is by far the Heil PR-22. Very flat response, articulate top end and great bottom end. Side and rear rejection are very good, proximity effect is much better than average and the mike handles SPL in excess of 145db. Now take a look at the Heil. Flat from 40hz to 12Khz.

http://www.heilsound.com/pro/products/pr22/index.htm

Trick question. Which mic will give the best results, has the best frequency response and will get the best results with the least effort.

I'm glad to see you recognized the difference in sound between the Audix and the Shure. The point is simple. Just because a mic has been around for a while doesn't mean it's still the best mike to use. Today there are many options to choose from, and most are better than Shure IMO.

Placement and technique is a seperate subject that plays a part in this equation, however, you need the right tool for the job to begin with.

I didn't listen to the files, however, if the 57 IS defective (high SPL or dropped usually) then you already have a better mike to use. Go with the Audix, Ebay the 57, and;

Have fun. :wink:

 

[SeasonOfPain]

Thanks for the detailed response, Bob. I do understand the differences, and generally actually prefer other mics over the 57... however, I did use the mic on previous recordings and it did an OK job. The "Bad Seed" and "Family Portrait" songs on my Soundclick site were done with the same 57 mic.

If you do have a minute, can you take a quick listen to the two clips? It sounds like you have a good ear, and I really do think there's something more radical than inherent frequency response differences going on, and I don't want to put a defective 57 up on Craigslist.

I plan on getting a Sennheiser 609 silver to replace it... I've gotten good results with that mic in the past with my F-50.

 

[dmt]

I have a e609, and it has a very differnt sound. I like it, but I dont know how high an spl it can take. Seems lke there is some audible distortion at volume.

 

[Elpelotero]

I've heard good things about the Heil. It's the new thing for records these days, such as the new Linkin Park album. Thanks for that post Bob!

 

[pd335]

very awesome info on this thread!