MN
55 posts
Mar 22, 2011
10:46 AM
|
Lately I've been playing in a bluesy trio with a singer/acoustic guitarist, an electric guitarist, and me singing a bit and blowing a mix of amped and acoustic harp.
For amped harp, I've been playing my vintage 520 bullet with a CR element (armed with one of Greg H.'s excellent volume controls) into a Marble Max 1x8 tube amp. However, we did some recording on Saturday and upon hearing the results, I'm thinking I should switch to a cleaner sounding mic. The sound as is is just too overdriven. It might work if I was sitting in with a heavy Chicago-type blues band, but not in this trio.
Now I know a lot of guys (most notably Jason R.) preach a "clean mic/dirty amp" approach. And obviously, it works great for a lot of cats. But I've never really considered the SM57 to be a terribly clean-sounding mic. Plugged into an amp through an impedance transformer, the 57 gives a righteous growl and honk, IMO. In fact I've used mine like that a good bit over the years. Anyway, given that, I'm wondering if I wouldn't be better off with an SM58 or Audix Fireball instead.
What do you think .... do any of you who are after a bluesy, amped sound play with a 58 or Fireball into an amp?
|
HarpNinja
1252 posts
Mar 22, 2011
10:52 AM
|
Champ style amp + SM57 = Awesome!
www.mikefugazzi.com/liveaudio
All of those songs use a SM57. The top two are with a 6w VHT Special 6 and the other ones are a Double Trouble (so not really a small amp).
On the site wide player on the bottom, there are 4 songs I think. Two are with a Vibro Champ/SM57...Gotta Keep Movin and Leave Your Light On.
Point being, a SM57 won't be too dirty.
----------
Mike
Quicksilver Custom Harmonicas
Updated 3/17/11
|
5F6H
569 posts
Mar 22, 2011
11:06 AM
|
A SM58 isn't likely to be that much, if any cleaner than a 57 once you use an IMT. In fact I'd go so far as to say that specific model of mic gives very little in the way of guarantees. If mic output is too low the amp will just sound flat & woofy.
I still prefer mics with a strong output with small SE amps, but it might be just a case of finding one with a cleaner/smother tone, but still a good output. Also, you may find a lower mu preamp tube helpful (though I rarely use anything lower than a 5751 in my champ/princeton style amp).
Also, don't get the impression that I'm trying to teach grandma to suck eggs, but small SE amps have little power transformers/power supplies & cathode bias...it's easy to overdrive them so be very careful with your amp settings & remember that you don't have to blow very hard, if you do, the tone will often crunch up off the bat & the highs will compress off. It's a little counter intuative, but blowing gently often keeps more high end (sounds cleaner) & dynamics in the sound. You don't have to work them as hard as a typical big stage amp.
Does your Max have a "#2" attenuated input like a Fender?
Last Edited by on Mar 22, 2011 11:07 AM
|
Barry C.
202 posts
Mar 22, 2011
11:20 AM
|
for what it's worth; i really dislike my sure sm58 for (acoustic) harp use - maybe it's my particular mic - clean yes but does not project well unless i'm almost touching it. i hear much better reviews about the fireball.
----------
~Banned in Boston!
|
hvyj
1322 posts
Mar 22, 2011
12:45 PM
|
57s and 545s have proximity effect, so how clean or dirty they sound has a lot to do with what mic handling techniques you use. They are very versatile mics.
An Audix Fireball V into a dirty amp can be a very nice sounding combination. Fireballs are very responsive but VERY clean--no tonal coloration at all. The mic stays clean and has no proximity effect, so your only source of overdrive/crunch/distortion is the amp. The clean mic gives you really nice articulation and all the tone coloration comes from the amp. Fireballs are little BRIGHT though, and an overdriven amp can sound trebly anyway, so that's something to take into account.
|
Shredder
248 posts
Mar 22, 2011
1:21 PM
|
I been playing the dirty/clean for several years now. I used an Audix FB/5 with built in volume control. I still use this mic in my country gospel band every Sunday. With the Blues?rock band I moved to one of Greg H's ultimate 57's and a wooden bullet he makes.
When I played the Audix with the Blues band I used a Morley A/B switch and moved from a clean amp to my Vintage tube amp via the switch. To get an even more clean sound I put the Audix in a mic holder and was able to get more hand articulation out of the sound. This way needs to have the gain turned up a little more because your a little bit further away from the element.
My current set up is to use the ultimate 57 on a stand and run a line out to the PA with a slight delay from the mixer"yhis did away with lugging another amp around". The 45 has a cleaner sound when played on a stand and not cupped.I still use the 57 with a dirty HG-2 amp via the Morley switch.
Hope this helps, Mike
One more thing , I have added a Morley volume plus to the chain. When playing on the stand I run the pedal to full volume. This does away with setting the gain higher.When I cup it I can roll the pedal back to rhythm volume and not be to loud.
Last Edited by on Mar 22, 2011 1:22 PM
|
jimjam
8 posts
Mar 22, 2011
8:45 PM
|
I've always felt that if you play poorly get a crappy mike to hide behind. But if the band is grungy get a grungy mic/pedal/amp to match the band.
I played a lot of tourist-traps and the band covered a wide range of material. It was easier for me to keep a clean signal and mash a pedal for grittier tunes. It's also cheaper and less wiring.
All that said, I think the Fireball is just about perfect: low feedback; volume knob; pop-screen built in; sounds clean; made to be abused... and looks cool. For show I have a Shure 520D.
(ymmv)
----------
"If you want to hide, find a stage."
~John Popper
|
shbamac
107 posts
Mar 22, 2011
10:11 PM
|
MN I've got a Fireball V that I don't want. I've had it for about 2 months. Just don't care for it. If you want it send me a email.
|
7LimitJI
424 posts
Mar 23, 2011
2:44 AM
|
I may be stating the obvious. But :-
For recording, try turning the amp down till its not so overdriven.
Same for on stage if the amp is mic'd up.
Probably need to turn the treble up more than you're used to with this approach.
----------
The Pentatonics Myspace
Youtube
"Why don't you leave some holes when you play, and maybe some music will fall out".
"It's music,not just complicated noise".
Last Edited by on Mar 23, 2011 3:42 AM
|
MN
56 posts
Mar 23, 2011
4:16 AM
|
Thanks for the feedback, guys. I think I'll just have to experiment a bit with a different mic (I already own a 58, 57 and Fireball).
I do like the tip about turning down the amp, as well, though. The volume doesn't get much louder after about halfway up, the sound just gets nastier. BTW, 5F6H, the Max just has a single input, volume knob and a tone knob.
|
Reverblow
31 posts
Mar 24, 2011
2:57 PM
|
'HarpNinja'
I play through a Harpgear HG2 (mostly at home) and have been thinking of picking up an Ultimate SM57 mic. From your above statement you make it read that you think this might make a great amp/mic combination. I currently use Shure PE53 stick and EV638 mics. Any idea how much of an improvement the SM57 would make? I like to have the option of playing low and gritty to clear and mellow. Thanks in advance.
|
Joe_L
1152 posts
Mar 24, 2011
3:00 PM
|
Any idea how much of an improvement the SM57 would make? I like to have the option of playing low and gritty to clear and mellow.
There is not much difference between a modern 545 and an SM-57. If you're going to plug it into an amp, get the 545, otherwise you'll need to carry an impedence matching transformer. Alter you playing style to give yourself the two options, low and gritty to clear an mellow. A softer attack will tend to not overdrive the microphone as much.
----------
The Blues Photo Gallery
|
Reverblow
32 posts
Mar 24, 2011
3:20 PM
|
Joe_L
In chatting with Greg at Blowsmeaway, he recommended the SM57, but did not mention the need for an impedence transformer. Hmm. I'd be getting the screw-on cable connector if that makes any difference.
|
5F6H
584 posts
Mar 24, 2011
3:32 PM
|
Reverblow, when ordering an ultimate 57 from Greg you specify whether you want lo or hi impedance.
|
Reverblow
33 posts
Mar 24, 2011
3:40 PM
|
5F6H,
I noticed that on his site. I'm assuming that choosing hi-z would take care of not needing an impedence transformer. No techie here, just trying to make the right mic choice. Thanks for the tip.
|
5F6H
585 posts
Mar 24, 2011
3:42 PM
|
Sorry Reverblow, yes my response was perhaps a bit "shorthand", hi-z would mean that the mic already had an impedance transformer built in.
|
Reverblow
34 posts
Mar 24, 2011
3:44 PM
|
Thanks again 5F6H for the clarification.
|
jimjam
13 posts
Mar 25, 2011
5:10 AM
|
shbamac - I sent you an email regarding that Fireball...
----------
"If you want to hide, find a stage."
~John Popper
|
Greg Heumann
1082 posts
Mar 25, 2011
9:17 AM
|
re: "...hi-z would mean that the mic already had an impedance transformer built in"
Just to be clear - This COULD imply that I take a low impedance mic (which already has an internal transformer) and add a SECOND transformer to it internally. That is not how I make Ultimate 57's and Ultimate 58's high impedance. Instead, I simply use the transformer Shure puts in the 545SD, which as most of you know, is a dual impedance mic. The single transformer has both low and high impedance output taps. ANY transformer in a mic is indeed an impedance matching transformer, but most people are unaware there is a transformer in the barrel of their SM57
----------
/Greg
|
