The collections of mics owned by some forum members are truly remarkable. As a relatively new player I'm very fortunate to own a JT30 with a functioning original crystal mic. I'm aware of its fragility so quite cautious with it. I also own a Greg Heumann wood bullet. My wife insisted I have it for my 60th birthday as she immediately recognized the quality and beauty of Greg's work. God bless her! The element is classic Shure. Quite frankly, initially I wasn't sure if I was even going to be comfortable with a bullet but now stick mics seem out of the question. Greg's bulletized mics are a possibility though not yet classic in appearance. The obvious missing bullet body is the Shure Green Bullet. Or is it obvious? Are there other bullet bodies deserving serious consideration? Turner comes to mind but the fins look uncomfortable though very cool.
Last Edited by SmokeJS on Feb 12, 2013 3:19 PM
I don't think there's a mic every blues player should own. For every one you can name there's a top 10 player that didn't use it. I frequently play through whatever is available.
Since you've directed your question relative to “Blues Players”, here's my thinking that some may disagree with. For me personally, there are basically two different sounds I’ve always aimed for.
One is that ballsy, crunchy sound and the other is a cleaner acoustic sound. If you can do it with one mic, that’s great. I’ve always used two --- a bullet for crunch and a PE54 for the cleaner sound.
I do acknowledge that technique, embouchure, cupping, lip pursing and tongue blocking all come into play, but I still need 2 mics to cover the sounds I'm after.
Last Edited by Noodles on Feb 12, 2013 2:54 PM
If you had to choose only one, probably a sm57 or 58. Both are proven for harp and vocals. If I wasn't doing vocals, then I would lay out the cash foe one of Greg's custom bullets. ---------- You Tube = goshinjk
Wow!! Thanks 2chops. I was beginning to worry. It's hard enough trying to overcome the stigma of Peavey amps, if I didn't have a respectable mic I don't know what I'd do.
Last Edited by Thievin' Heathen on Feb 12, 2013 5:53 PM
From the time i have played blues, which is more frequent as of late (since i joined a band a few years ago), I have to agree with Noodles 100%. Different mics give you different sound... and depending on what, and how you play should weigh your decision.
I personally have a Shure bullet (with the original element) and treat it much like you do with your JT30, SmokeJS. I have small hands.... but wanted "that sound" and went with a 707A (the smallest body of the Shure Bullets).
I have a crap backup mic, but honestly I am in serious debate about buying Greg's bulletized stick mic. You can muddy up the sound of a mic somewhat, with the gear that's out there now. 2chops may be right, a sm57 or 58 might be a viable option.
No matter what you decide.... remember that when you walk on stage, reliability is key.
@Noodles - you should be able to get very dirty crunchy tone with a PE54 - they rival very good bullets. But you didn't say how you're hooking it up. I'm guessing you have the bullet into a tube amp, and the PE54 into the PA. (That's what I do - though I'm using an Ultimate 58.) In that case the clean vs dirty has a lot less to do with the mic and lot more to do with amp vs PA. ---------- /Greg
I'm saving all my quarters and dimes saving up for something from Greg. I had been saving them just to get them out of my pockets, but since I gave it a purpose I'm being more diligent. I've got about $50 so far.
I like heavy, metal, classic styled mics like the JT 30 or Astatic 200, with a shure CM.
My favourite is a very rare australian shell called a Dynamax; good size (smaller than a green bullet), very thick cast metal which I believe affects the resonance and makes it the most feedback resistant shell. I've had the same cm element in different shells and this one is definitely louder before feedback. ---------- Lucky Lester
Last Edited by didjcripey on Feb 13, 2013 2:20 AM
I have a decent variety of mics, my first was a lavalier mic into a ss Crate amp which was not too good tone wise. I got a GB and a Fender Princeton after that and used it for years. Acquired a crystal mic, a Ruskin, which is hot and sweet, great for more jazzy swingy stuff. Had Greg do some mods on a military issue dynamic mic which sounds really great these days. Got a deal on a Bushman Nady low z mic which looks cool but the element is crap. Horse traded for a Shure 545s which is low z. sounds good in the p.a. for either vocs or harp. Last week Saw me getting a high z Shure 585 stick mic. This is a very good sounding mic for vocs and harp both through my little tube amp.
There are plenty of choices a harp player can make. I have played a good part of a gig through the p.a. with a sm57 or 58 occasionally, which works out ok if you can get the sound man to tweak a channel just for harp.
All these mics are fun and good to have and use but any mic is no real substitute for great acoustic chops. Great chops with a good mic is ideal. ---------- http://www.reverbnation.com/jawboneandjolene
Every blues player should own a bullet of some sort. If money's not that much of a consideration, it should be a wood mic from Greg H. Mine is GREAT.
(BTW, when I say "every blues player should own a bullet of some sort," I'm NOT saying there aren't great blues harp players whose mic of choice ain't a bullet. We don't really need to run down that list, do we?)
I would have to say theres just no way to go wrong with a Shure 520 and a Astatic Jt-30. I have owned and tried just about every mic and I just cannot get into them like a good old JT. I have three one original 50's ceramic jt-30c a flat grey with bullet screw jt30 black tag with a cr and a rivet tag jt with a cm. Then a Brown Shure 707a black tage that I repainted in original brown with a smokin hot cm. Those shells on the JT and the Shure are just so easy to hold and so easy to get a good sound no matter how you cup etc.. and they are so small you can fit them in your pocket i mean you just have to own one of those if ya ask me
I agree that there is no set "standard" for what mics any player of any genre should own. But for the sake of argument, I'll list what kinda feels to me like a complete, versatile mic arsenal.
- JT30 design of some kind (original, Bluesblaster, JT30RH, Torpedo, etc) - Shure bullet design of some kind (520, Red Howler, H5, etc) - Stick mic (SM57, 545, Akai DM13, etc) - Traditional design dynamic vocal mic, both for cupped, amped up playing, and for acoustic, hand-expression playing (SM58, Beta 58, etc)
In terms of elements, having at least one crystal or ceramic mic feels right for the brighter tone when it's called for. But that's just my 2 cents....
I agree with Ryan. Just because you play a certain type of music doesn't mean you need to have a certain type of mic. Certain types of bullet mics are good, as are a lot of stick mics. Then again some bullet mics sound really crappy, as do some stick mics.
If you have the money and can afford to buy different mics then do so if it makes you happy. If you ain't got the dough, then use whatever you can afford to get. Either way work on your tone and hone your chops, then you'll always sound good.
I agree with Gregg. You can never have too many mics. lol. I have a suitcase full of a variety of mics, and then some. However, there is a particular mic that I go to for most all of my playing. It is a Turner 785 that I have modified for my use. I like it so much that I have about 8 of them...just in case.
I think nearly everyone owns more Mics than they need.
That being said I own a few Mics still.
There are three I use for a couple reasons.
I use a shure 440sl with a hot cm as it is very cutting and pushes some amps really hard. That particular mic has a bit more highs on tap. Great for getting a hard rocking sound with definition.
I use a shure 520 with a black cr for deeper fairly dirty tones.
I use a shure 533sa stick mic. It's high impedance and is a bit more defined and cleaner. It still over drives but it tracks chromatic harps well and gets along with driving a small amp in a big way. It is the perfect middle ground between a super aggressive bullet and something like sm57 with a transformer. They really do get dirty if you want them to though.
The 440 is my favorite mic then its a crap shoot for any of the crs I own and the 533sa. The 533 is more accurate in its representation of the range of the harp while crunching up. The crs scrub the upper end a bit.
So yeah....... No recipe for everyone. Most people are busy hunting deep bass and I am more or less usually looking for cut in a mix. I favor a very present tone live. Bass has never been an issue for me. Mics with the better mids and highs have a ring to them that works very well. It's something that the harp has acoustically but gets lost often.
Last Edited by Willspear on Feb 13, 2013 3:34 PM
I agree with Willspear about the Shure 440SL microphone.
But I think the microphone every player should own is the one he likes best. The problem with that is you need to try lots of mics to find the one that is right for you. We get tons of advice about mics but nothing is as meaningful as playing on stage using "the" mic with a good band. Then ya know it's right.
I have to confess, I don't own many mics. Some guys have more than 10... I have one that I use most of the time (the 440SL), another that gets used occasionally, and a couple others that almost never get played. I fiddle with amps a LOT more than I do with mics.
Thing about the 440 is that its a full size shure but sits in the hand really well. It has a very nice contour from the grill to the body. Very slight difference but its a difference that is entirely noticeable.
Totally underrated shell
Last Edited by Willspear on Feb 13, 2013 4:38 PM
Like others in this thread, I can't say there are any mics a blues player "must" have.
I love the history of the gear that surrounds the music, and I do collect vintage microphones, but any one of them would do just fine...lol. For probably 15 years I only had one mic - a JT-30 I got NIB in 1972 at a radio repair shop in Pittsburgh.
I have several favorite mics, but one of those is a Shure 440 SL like Rick and Willspear mention. I love it. I had it modified so that I can keep it on its original stand for display when I'm not using it, or traveling with the mic in my harp case. As others have said, it is a classy looking mic, and plays / holds in my medium to small size hands really well. But, I like just looking at it, too.
One thing about the 440 SL body, though, is that there is a hole which causes a significant source of feedback if not plugged. The pics linked above show the filled hole on that microphone in some detail.
Johncn
Last Edited by Johncn on Feb 13, 2013 7:25 PM
Johncn, yep, the 440SL is a great mic. The hole in mine is filled with epoxy and sanded smooth. The mic resists feedback pretty well. I'm happy with it.
All this talk about mics has made be want to make a video comparing mics head to head, but I only have three I think are worth including in the video: The 440SL, a Front & Center mic, and a SM57 with a Greg Heumann Bulletizer. Maybe I'll do that tomorrow...
I've been through the owning loads of mics stage. These days I just have a Blues Blaster with a really good MC151 and a Shure SM57. They cover every situation for me. I don't see the need for anything more. Unless a really good hi-impedance stick mic comes along. In which case I'll sell off the Blues Blaster.
I've never yet found the patience to persist with sm57 long enough to get comfortable. It must be good I realise, because so many praise it. I do better with the 58; I think it's just the ball. First mic I ever used for harp I think was an re 10. Another well-loved legendary mic which I found awkward.. The mic I always return to is a EV605 fitted with a 99b86. Hot and bottom heavy, I realise it doesn't reproduce the highs so well though. I have a JT with an old 99g86, really nice in the mids, nice sound but nowhere near as hot. I like it but when things start to get cooking, I start looking for the 605 again. Such big balls... I gotta turner crystal in a JT too. But it doesn't go so well through my fenders. I use it at home sometimes but I never gig with it. I think I need to learn to use the 57 though because I do think my CM mics are somewhat limited in range ----------
The wide variety of responses, in this case everything from just find one mic to the more mics the better, is what puts this forum on my must read liist each and every day. I'm likely going to be somewhere in between when it comes to mics. It's good to hear about the Shure 440SL as it very much sounds like it might be the Shure bullet style body I'd be most interested in. My main source of info for vintage mics is the Fat Bottom Mics page of previously built mics. Great pictures there of a wide variety of bullet mics but the only Shure mics I noticed were 520's and 707's.
Last Edited by SmokeJS on Feb 14, 2013 3:49 AM
SuperBee - Yeah the SM57 is a great harp mic. Personally I've never found them a problem to cup for extended periods of time. If you have problems cupping one though, maybe a Bulletizer from Greg Heumann would help. The Ev605 is also a great mic. Personally I found the RE10 a great mic tonally, but a pain in the backside to cup.
I only own and play through Electrovoice mics exclusively, so I cannot comment on the rest. For stick mics, it's a toss up between the RE-10 (Low-Z) and the 631B (Dual-Z). For a bullet, I prefer the EV 638 (Hi-Z) Great bottom end and easy to cup.
If you like a 58 and don't mind defacing it crushing the ball to flatten it makes a big difference. I have a couple 533sa Mics. The flattened screen allows it to drive harder and if I put that screen on the other mic it changes its response a bit too.
Last Edited by Willspear on Feb 14, 2013 5:15 PM
Thanks for the thoughts, Kingley, JD, Will. I do pretty much keep the 58 for a vocal mic but sometimes use it for harp just because its there. The more I play high harps and top end, the more I think it could benefit from a mic with a wider more even range, so I'll definitely try those ideas ----------
@JD re: "According to Shure it's the same element." Although I've heard this many times I still don't believe it - they sure look different under the covers. Did you personally hear this from Shure? ---------- /Greg
Thanks tmf. So - different polar response, different frequency response, different proximity effect... those were always the things I experienced.
Whether you want to think of them as "the same" or "different" is semantics. In practice for harp players, and especially when hand held, they're totally different animals. ---------- /Greg
My 57 is much darker than the 58. It excels at mic'ing harp and guitar amps. The 58 is brighter and more articulate. It excels at mic'ing vocals or acoustic guitar.
The sonic differences are pretty dramatic. It is hard to believe it is just proximity. When I move the 57 away from the source (to equal the extra height of the 58 ball grille) it still sounds much darker.
The two mics sound very different and are intended -- I think -- for different purposes.
"The two mics sound very different and are intended -- I think -- for different purposes."
from the above Shure website post-
The SM58 was designed for vocal application and it uses a ball grille that acts as an effective pop filter. The SM57 was designed as an instrument microphone where a smaller grille size is preferred. In this application, pop and wind are not usually a concern.
Why does the SM57 sound so much different than the SM58? I know the grill affects the sound and so does porting and microphone body shape and size. The specs say the SM57 goes a bit lower yet many people feel the SM58 is bassier sounding. I'm guessing their perception of bass is actually lower mids but I can't find any frequency graphs on your site to confirm this. I would have expected the SM57 to sound bassier because a greater proximity effect is possible since you can get closer to the cartridge but I guess many people's sense of bass is not really low frequency extension. ANSWER: The SM58 and the SM57 share the same mic element, the Unidyne III. The only difference between the these two models is the grill design.
The grill design does affect the high frequency response, particularly above 8,000 Hz.
The SM57 grill design allows more proximity effect because the mic diaphragm can be placed closer to the sound source. Proximity effect increases each time the distance from the mic to the source is halved. When a mic is placed very close, it is quite easy to halve the distance: 1 inch to 1/2 inch; 1/2 inch to 1/4 inch; etc. Remove the ball grill from the SM58 and it will be more similar to the SM57 in its low frequency response.
Any other differences you hear between the SM57 and SM58 are likely to be subjective (psycho-acoustic) or due to slight manufacturing differences due to part tolerance.
QUESTION: On the Shure FAQ "SM57 vs SM58 - proximity effect", the answer contained the following sentence:
"Remove the ball grill from the SM58 and it will be more similar to the SM57 in its low frequency response."
Can you actually use an SM58 this way, or was that only a theoretical statement? ANSWER: "Can you actually use an SM58 this way, or was that only a theoretical statement?" Yes, but be very careful! With the ball grill removed, there is very little protection for the SM58 diaphragm. Take the ball grill off and examine the SM58 mic element to see for yourself. As long as you take great care, the SM58 can be used with the ball grill removed. My good friend Mason Casey "removing the ball"-
Last Edited by tmf714 on Feb 15, 2013 3:14 PM
I don't know beyond shure stating they are pretty much the same cartridge.
I d know that proximatey makes a tremendous difference.
I have an Argonne giant bullet and have seated elements deep in the shell and used the same element in a shure 520. They sound like they have nothing in common and yet the element is exactly the same
My first time on this forum.I'm a hack and playing for years and seldom jam with others or amplify...but I do have a Shure 520D Green Bullet, that I bought new about 30 years ago (made in Evanston IL). I remember I had to choose whether hi or low impedence. I believe I chose "hi" and wired it accordingly...it seems that this mic has never been sensitive as compared to other mics...meaning I have to crank the volume way up on the amp (no volume control on the mic itself) to get sound out of it. Does anyone know if this is just the nature of this type of mic...or maybe I miswired something all those years ago? Thanks for anything you may be able to offer.
I have a old Ruskin chrome bullet, an Astatic JT-30, and a dynamic Shaker 1/4" connection. All of these are from the mid 1990s. The Shaker got water damaged during the hurricane...
I have a lot of Shure 520 shells I can sell--- they are already wired, on/off toggle switch, 1/4" female jack so you can plug in any guitar cable. (no elements)
I don't know how to post pics, but you can email me.
@Quep61 - it does sound like your mic is set up for low impedance. Here's how to check. Unscrew the 1/4" jack cover to determine which wires are soldered to the tip and sleeve. Then look at the back of your element and see which wires are connected to the mic. Note that some of these are new wires, soldered to the end of the cable The element should have blue, red and black wires coming from it. If the tip and sleeve are connected to the blue and red, then you are set up for low impedance. If they're connected to the black and red, or black and blue - then you have high impedance. Black and blue is usually slightly higher output than black and red. ---------- /Greg
Hi Greg, sorry I posted my last reply before reading yours. I'm not overly technical with this...but this is how I learn...(and I appreciate it!) 1.) under the 1/4 sleeve I see a translucent/white (but that white has a little red coloring near the tip in the mic housing)...so I'll call that white "red". The red and the black are soldered together for the jack tip. 2.) I also have what appears to be the exposed metal shielding under the black outer cable covering (which surrounds the insulated black and "red" wires). This exposed shielding wire is soldered to the longer piece of the jack that is clamped to the cable assy. I don't see a third wire with blue insulation under the jack sleeve...unless the blue wire is connected to what I think is the shielding wires....(which could be because the blue wire in the mic housing comes up from the housing base where the black and red wires eminate from.)
Mic housing: 1.) black wire connected to element along with one side of a "resistor" (not sure what you call it) at same solder point.
2.)red wire connected to other side of element by itself
3.) blue wire connects to back of element (opposite red wire). The other wire from "resistor" is at the same solder point as the blue wire.
Does this make sense!
I appreciate your time, as I have been on your website before and I like what I see there.
