SM57 lesson

Mudcloth · Post by **Mudcloth** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:58 am

I was fortunate enough to record an acoustic track for a record at Pedernales Studios outside of Austin yesterday. It's a pretty badass studio and I was really looking forward to get a chance to record there. Since time was tight and we needed to focus on the task I knew I shouldn't to talk shop with the engineer [a fellow named Boo] or pick his brain about gear or technique and just let him do his job. The studio is about an hour from where I live so I had plenty of time to imagine what mic he would use. Would it be an old RCA ribbon? Maybe a vintage Nuemann? At very least I should expect a newer yet super expensive mic.
I finally get there and waiting for me in my booth is a SM57 [insert debbie downer "wha wha"]. I don't say anything. I just tune up my guitar ['68 j-45] and strum and listen to it through the phones. It sounded fucking great! I wasn't surprised that it sounded great it's just that I was expecting something else. Maybe it was the Neve board....
After the song was cut I couldn't help but ask why he chose the 57. He told me he worked with one of Prince's engineers a while back. The guy said his rule was "Cheap guitar, nice mic. Nice guitar, cheap mic". ooooooommmmmmmmmm.

Anyway, I've been going through the "what mic to get next" throes. Before that it was the "I covet a really nice pre". I saved up for months because it wanted to finally plug into something like a Chandler TG-2 or an Api. But after getting to know my Rodc modified Akai M8 pre's I realized I'm really happy with them. I also realized through this message board and through the advice of people like Professor and Rodc and others that mic's should come first. So after careful consideration, I ended up getting an AT4047 and a Heil pr-40. Next for me it'll be a Shinybox 46mxl. Oh, and a couple of 57's.
It's easy to forget about the workhorse 57. It's not shiny and a lot of times they smell like stale beer. But, by fuckiddy, they always seem to work and to not have one or two is a big oversight, even for a project or home studio.

parlormusic · Post by **parlormusic** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:15 am

Great story. It got me thinking of that approach.

LVC_Jeff · Post by **LVC_Jeff** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:11 pm

Mudcloth Jones wrote:The guy said his rule was "Cheap guitar, nice mic. Nice guitar, cheap mic".

Nice. I'll remember that....

BeepBeep · Post by **BeepBeep** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:20 pm

What did "boo" plug the 57 into?

thethingwiththestuff · Post by **thethingwiththestuff** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:50 pm

BeepBeep wrote:What did "boo" plug the 57 into?

that's what i want to know..

Blade · Post by **Blade** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:23 pm

Mudcloth Jones wrote: After the song was cut I couldn't help but ask why he chose the 57. He told me he worked with one of Prince's engineers a while back. The guy said his rule was "Cheap guitar, nice mic. Nice guitar, cheap mic". ooooooommmmmmmmmm.

Good story, but I call bullshit on this theory!

Does this go for other instruments as well?

LOL!!!!!!!

I can't wait to do a session with someone and mic up their 3000 dollar acoustic guitar with a Realistic Highball and hear the magic!

I'm not doggin on the 57 and if you say that the sound recorded was good, then I believe you, but 9 times out of a 10 a great condenser is going to sound better.

This is just common sense. I'm glad it worked out for you!

-blade-

RodC · Post by **RodC** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:37 pm

Cool story, after hearing your tone I can see where a 57 would fit it nicely. I think ppl are quick to give up on them, I had to record some roto toms a while back and I coulnt find any mic that really brought out the tones I wanted. We pulled some 57s from our live stuff, hooked them up... Exactly what we were looking for.

A condensor would prob sound good for your tone for a bit of room, but I would prob pull out my e609 or my shure 545 to get the bulk of your tone, (both pretty close to a 57 sound the e609 just isnt as sensitive to the placement angle)

JMorken · Post by **JMorken** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:55 pm

I love it!

Similar story. I was tracking vocals the other day and picking out mics to try. I hung a Bluebird and a U87 in the booth (totally different animals). After settling on the U87 and taking down the bluebird, I had a wild hair and hung a 57 where the bluebird was. After tracking, I compared the two and on certain songs and the 57 was just right. I dunno, just was. I ended up using it on the verses and the U87 on the choruses on some songs. That helped break my stigma of expensive mic = best sound. Oh, the 57 was cookin' through a DBX 586.

Mudcloth · Post by **Mudcloth** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:58 am

BeepBeep wrote:What did "boo" plug the 57 into?

It looked like everything went into a 24 Input Vintage 80 Series Neve Console. I have one of these at home. Okay I lied there a little.
This obviously had a lot to do as to why it sounded great. Of course, I'm sure a really badass condenser mic would have sounded awesome. The thing about the 57 was that you didn't have to micro-manage the mic placement. I mean, I pointed it between the twelve fret and the sound hole but I got up twice to hear the playback. It wasn't like I had to feel like I shouldn't move a half an inch or I'd lose the sweet spot.
Something else I should mention is the role the acoustic is playing on this song. It's a 6/8 time Ike and Tina song, r&b. Duet female vocals, drums ,bass, baritone guitar, piano, and acoustic. I'm not mixing it but I know the acoustic isn't a spotlight instrument on this track. It's there to fill things out low in the mix. It's the kind of thing you're not supposed to notice unless it's not there. Ooooooommmm...
Well, maybe a little more in the mix than that. Supporting role.
His cheap mic/nice guitar visa versa rule/suggestion clearly didn't mean stick a radio shack mic at a pre-war Martin. It means if your guitar sounds great to start with you don't have to jack around trying to make it sound even better. I've had a similar situation recording through my Fender Champ at another session. The engineer put a u87 in front of it and it didn't work for what we were doing. I asked him to put a 57 in front of it and we're off. To me a 57 is more representative of how my ears hear. Micro-managing the mic placement of a speaker is a whole other thread.

Drew's Analog Planet · Post by **Drew's Analog Planet** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:28 am

Yeah, I dunno how I feel about Boo's theory, but shoot, it's true that any mic can work in any sitchee-ation. I set up a bunch of great mics in front of a male rock singer one time: U47, M49, U67, and just to make it interesting I put up a Shure SM7 at the end of the line. Guess which one one for this dude? That's right! The SM7.

In fact, just recently I was doing this trumpet track. I set up this Royer R122V (the new Royer tube Ribbon). Just for giggles I put a 57 up there too, really as a talkback mic more than anything. But I recorded both mics on to seperate tracks ( both panned together about 50/50 in the control-room while tracking) and then on playback we A/B'd them.

Guess which one won?

BZZZZ Wrong!

The Royer was freakig liquid gold baby! Amazing! Succulent!

What am I crazy? Are you crazy? Did you really think I was gonna say the 57? No way! Thin! Buzzy! Narrow!

In the mix we used 100% Royer, 0% Shure.

Drew's Analog Planet · Post by **Drew's Analog Planet** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:29 am

By The Way,

Did you see Willie when you were out there at Pedernales?

Huh?

Didja?

Was he there?

Was he baked?

I love Willie!

EasyGo · Post by **EasyGo** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:04 pm

Interesting thread. I think the 'great guitar cheap mic' thing is pretty much horseshit, but I agree that the 57s perform better than they're given credit for, especially when plugged into a good preamp. These things were made for music. Also love 58s, especially with the ball end removed. When the Unidyne capsule design came out, it was a real advance in mic technology, and it's easy to forget that when there are so many varieties of mic at every price point.

I have really been feeling the 57 on male lead vocals, just 57 > RNP > MOTU828. Really love the mids on the Shures; I think you have to spend quite a bit more to get mids that sound much better.

Also love the rejection properties of 57s; these are great for tracking basics in less-than-stellar situations (small basement room with no treatment sound familiar?). I often record vocals in front of the monitors with no headphones with the nearby furnace/washer/dryer switching on and off, and the 57 rejects those sounds.

Can't wait to plug one into a PM1000 channel! Shure fucking rules.

Mudcloth · Post by **Mudcloth** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:29 pm

Drewcifer wrote:By The Way,

Did you see Willie when you were out there at Pedernales?

He doesn't hang there very much anymore from what I understand. He lives right up the road and has his own studio at his "western town" set up, with fewer hangers on. I got to record there once for his daughter Paula. I got to use his 52' ES-125 through his Matchless amp!

I did finally get to meet him at his granddaughter's wedding, where I played in the band. I got paid some dough and a bottle of champagne, which I still have. He's the kind of guy were even if he wasn't famous he'd be the most noticable person in the room. And high.

By the way, I'm not saying throw away your condensers or that the cm/gg rule is set in stone. Nothing about recording is set in stone it seems. It was more of a philosophical starting point for this particular engineer. Or he used up all the good mic's and was just trying to make me feel better through Jedi mind tricks!
I was also trying to point out that during my recent mic lust phase, I forgot all about the obvious.
"Good ole rock. Nothing beats rock."
-Bart Simpson

gutsofgold · Post by **gutsofgold** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:11 pm

I've experimented with about a dozen mics on my buddies HUGE snare drum and the only thing that could really get the "thwack" sound we wanted was the 57. Up the highs and lows a bit with some EQ and I can't wrong most of the time with this mic.

Speaking of SM57's, I got a chance to grab two used ones locally. What is a reasonable price to pay for some working SM57's with so-so cosmetics.

2121TrumbullAve · Post by **2121TrumbullAve** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:43 pm

yep - i've been trying to convince myself for years that i didn't really like 57's - but keep using them when i'm honest about what i'm hearing, particularly on snare and guitar cabs (usually in conjunction w/ something else).

you read about steve albini among others hating them - but dammit, what a blue collar classic they are.

Message Board

SM57 lesson

SM57 lesson

Re: SM57 lesson

Re: SM57 lesson

57s

indeed

Who is online