I've just started using an SM57 and I wasn't prepared for the huge increase in signal and tone, when cupped, compared using a conventional ball-and-stick vocal mic, also cupped. I had read about it 'breaking up nicely' here and elsewhere, but I didn't realise it would quite such a strong effect, but it's great. I guess the recorded samples are normalised. I wish I had equipment to measure and put it into numbers.
I can see that a Hi-Z Ultimate 57 is the logical way to go here - lighter, and no external transformer fuss. But I read that there is also a difference between the SM57 and the 545. So, is the change in signal strength and tone between the 57 and 545 as big as the change between the 58 and 57?
If it's a subtle, subjective thing, then I'm more than happy with the sound of the 57. I don't want to be a mic collector, so seeking advice.
---------- Formally 'Chamsya'
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Oct 14, 2013 4:45 AM
I think it is a subtle subjective thing...the 57 seems to have just more out put and a clearer bass response...Just my take I'm not a mic collector either. Jason
Like mindthegap l also have stated using an SM57. I am by no means a mic collector, but l do own a few bullet mics with CR and CM elements and a Hi-z 545....but totally agree that there is a huge difference in output and tone when using my SM57 ( Lo-z with impedence matching transformer). It even beats the pants off my 545 Hi-z for output alone. Apart from comfort and size issues, l don't know if changing from a Lo-z 57 with a transformer to an Ultimate Hi-z 57 woud offer any inprovement ijn output and tone. Maybe Greg Hueman could help with that one !!
Moon Cat - Thank you, that's helpful. It was your video on 'how to hold a stick mic' that really unlocked the 57 for me (assuming I've got the right person!) By moving the position of mic in the hand, you can indeed get nice variations of tone. It's more marked than comes across in the vid.
McSwaggerty - thanks, that's just what I wanted to know i.e. which has the most output. As I understand it, more and fuller output at source means lower gain, means less feedback and more room for the tone controls.
Re the Ultimate 57 - that's it exactly. I think the sound is just fine, and it's a convenience thing.
Actually with Moon Cat's relaxed grip from his vid, I find it's quite comfortable to hold. But lighter would be better.
HarpNinja - thanks. I've been listening to your recordings with the 57, also very helpful. It's the bottom end which is so useful, as I now don't have to do the 'bass to 10, treble to 1' thing.
BTW I can recreate the flavour of sounds I hear recorded with a 57, but I can't get it to do that very crackly broken-up tone that you hear so often. Usually seen with a bullet mic and a Champ. Does it rely on that sort of combination or will someone tell me it's a technique thing?
It'd depend on the element. A 57 goes from 40 to 15,000hz. I found this: http://harmonicaboogie.com/bf02/index.php?topic=21.0
Which would suggest that a 57 has a wider response than a JT30, as apparently a JT30 (depending on actual element) goes from 30-10,000hz, if the article is correct. ---------- Mantra Customized Harmonicas My Website
Last Edited by HarpNinja on Oct 14, 2013 8:01 AM
I tried to find a spec sheet for any JT30 element that showed the frequency response chart with no luck. That doesn't mean they aren't out there, just that I couldn't find one.
I did see reference to the JT30 having a response of 30-10,000hz a few times, but also a narrower response like 100-10,000hz. Several sites stated the JT30 has a wider response than any Green Bullet. ---------- Mantra Customized Harmonicas My Website
Last Edited by HarpNinja on Oct 14, 2013 8:06 AM
Maybe someone like Greg can chime in - when we look at the frequency response of a JT30 to a SM57, what is the drop off relative to the range?
In other words, the SM57 has a drop off in bass frequencies around 200hz, but goes down to 40hz. How does that compare of a JT30? In addition, does having a range below 100ish hz even make a difference? Can we hear that, etc?
My only bullet mic has a 520d element and for sure doesn't reporduce the bass that a 57 does, at least audibly. Also, the frequency curve is different than the 57 both visually and audibly. ---------- Mantra Customized Harmonicas My Website
One thing I think I've learnt from my tests, after a nudge in the right direction from Greg Heumann, is that when cupped, these mics are so far off the scale in terms of their original design that the free air specs don't apply. I expect this applies to freq. curve as well as overall output.
Just a for instance: within the cup if I position the 57 grill close to the harp front, it thins out the tone. Move it away and it thickens. Like a reverse-proximity effect. Who needs tone controls?
So, in practice does a JT30 give more signal than a 57? I'm not sure I could handle any more bass.
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Oct 14, 2013 9:16 AM
"If it's a subtle, subjective thing, then I'm more than happy with the sound of the 57. I don't want to be a mic collector, so seeking advice."
There is a marked difference between the two. It's more than subtle but isn't a drastic difference. The SM57 makes a great harp mic and as my favourite kitty says it has a clearer bass response. The 545 also makes a great harp mic. it's a little raspier sounding than an SM57 to my ear. I like both and will happily gig with either mic. You can't go wrong buying either. The Ultimate 57 is a little cheaper I think, but only by a few dollars.
Kingley wrote: "The 545 also makes a great harp mic. it's a little raspier sounding than an SM57 to my ear. I like both and will happily gig with either mic. You can't go wrong buying either. The Ultimate 57 is a little cheaper I think, but only by a few dollars."
=================
I couldn't agree more. Both are great mics. My Ultimate 545 (with vintage guts) is a bit raspier, a bit nastier than my 57. But both sound fantastic. YMMV.
Kingley, MN. Thank you for this. Do you think that the output level is similar between the 57 and 545? That's my criterion. I do like the idea of raspy though. I've been search for A/B demos, but not found anything.
McSwaggerty - that's a good question, maybe Greg can answer. I think that changing the output level with a different transformer wouldn't be that helpful as it works on ambient and harp signals equally. The key thing for me is that with the 57 the harp signal is much bigger than the ambient signal. If it changes the tone though, that is interesting.
Love the SM57. Versitile and dependable. I also recomend getting one of Greg's Bulletizers for it or the 545. $50 well spent. ---------- You Tube = goshinjk
The PE54 is another great mic. Very close in tone and output to the vintage 545's to my ear. I think I prefer a vintage 545 myself, but it's a very close call and I'd happily gig with either mic.
Last Edited by Kingley on Oct 14, 2013 12:34 PM
Hiya boys,iv'e got two 545's and a pe54 and the latter just blows the others away,just got more balls etc. Problem is in my experience that no two mics behave or sound the same ,especially vintage!!!
There is virtually no difference in output or tone between the high- and low-Z versions. The modern 545 element is virtually identical to a 57 element. (It may, in fact, be identical.) The biggest difference is that the 545 is housed in a plastic cartridge while the 57 element is housed in a metal cartridge. The OLD 545's had a good deal more breakup and color - that was due in part to the head and partly due to the older internal transformers. (The 1st generation 57's had older transformers too, and had more balls. But they're hard to find.) ---------- *************************************************** /Greg
1847's links above show the Shure PE54. That is basically identical to a 545, but the original one was high impedance only (and because of that, it sounds GREAT, not because it is high impedance but because the single-impedance internal transformer could be wound with thicker wire - and the transformers in these mics have a lot to do with their tone.) 545's were ALL "dual impedance" with the exception of the 545L, which was low impedance only (and with no internal transformer, a little on the weak side.)
The first mic (straight) is dual impedance - it is identical to a 545.
The second one (Pistol grip) COULD be single impedance but I THINK they switched even that model to dual impedance for some time before they discontinued it and only shipped the 545.
Last Edited by Greg Heumann on Oct 15, 2013 8:52 AM
1. Electrovoice N/D 967 has stronger output 2. No muddines in mids 3. Clear and fat bass responce 4. Clear hi frequencies. 5. No feedback problems. ---------- Excuse my bad English. My videos.
Does it overdrive or respond to cupping? The Fireball and AD5 I've tried stay clean all the time. They have ok output, but you have to crank your pedals or amp to get any break up.
Does the 967 push your overdrive pedal/amp? I switched to a 58 for more clarity, but the output is low enough it doesn't really push my HarpBreak into clipping. Thansk! ---------- Mantra Customized Harmonicas My Website
967 have very strong output (with impedance transformer) and it easy push amp into overdrive. Actually I start to use my LoneWolf HarpAttack much rare and with drive knob at zero, as output is very very strong and tone become overdistorted. It responds to cupping, not as perfect as Electrovoice re-10, and possible not as good as SM57, but it responds, at least MUCH better than Fireball. ---------- Excuse my bad English. My videos.
i,d be willing to bet the older pe 54 with the single impedance transformer would have perhaps a stronger proximity effect you can hear on some of "butters" recordings that particular mic. there does seem to be a discernible difference.
i prefer a jt 30 myself both crystal and ceramic at first i had a hard time telling the difference between the two, so i have been using the ceramic it has a stronger output. but yesterday i broke out the Chrystal it had a very different sound. it seemed to be crisper, and brighter it is a bit weaker, but it allows me to use higher gain preamp tubes, and i can crank the volume way up.
i use my 57 mainly to mic my champ works very well for that.
----------
i get a lot of request when i play my harmonica "but i play it anyway" ----------
i get a lot of request when i play my harmonica "but i play it anyway"
1847 - do you have a sample recording of your 57 and champ? I'm keen to hear the sounds you are getting, so I'm not missing out on something, with might be down to technique as much as equipment.
OK, as a bullet user (99A86) I have used a 58 at times into the PA. I see few people here mention the 58. How does the 58 compair to the 57, tone wise? Thanks...BN
The sm57 is a great harp mic. It has great bass response and with a tight cup it breaks up nice. My only issue is that the dam head roTates and if you over rotate you will break the leads. I definitely want to invest in a bulletizer which will give you a good cup and prevent breakage.
As an aside, i come from an engineering family. I marvel and admire good engineering because someone put a lot of thought into a design and anticipated issues and designed the flaws out of the product. I am not surprised but am clearly frustrated why a company like shure does not make an sm57 in which you can't rotate the head or grill so it does not cause the elemnt to twist thereby causing the hair like wires to break. The only conclusion is that they don't care if it breaks because you will have to buy another mic or order a replacement cartridge. When it breaks they sell more cartridges and make more money. Meanwhile resources continue to be used up as if we lived in a planet with unlimited resources. This seems to me to be an easy fix. I' m willing to pay An extra 20 bucks for better engineering. And I' m talking about doing more than installing a piece of foam under the grill.
I just bought a turner mic from the 1940's. The mic still works.
But is the sm57 a kick butt harp mic yes. Is it as cool as a vintage bullet, probably not.
The 58 is also a great harp mic, it doesn't have the grill issue, it is more easily cupped, but I don't think it has he break-up like the sm57, I could be wrong. I own both Mics but do not use them for harp, just vocals and mic'ing an amp. However, out of necessity, I would use either one without hesitation.
Here is a quick video comparing black labe cr, turner crystal, sm57 and sm58
Last Edited by blueswannabe on Oct 15, 2013 9:00 PM
@blueswannabe: You will not break the leads as long as the head floats freely. That is by design and actually helps to isolate handling noise from the rubber mounted element. However if the grill gets locked to the element, so that turning the head DOES rotate the element inside the housing, THAT can break the wires.
Shure builds the world's toughest mics. When they engineer something, they do it for a reason. Don't let the rotating grill bother you. It DOES make a clicking sound when you hand hold the mic (which is wan't designed for - they were more concerned about your touching it with your lips when using as a vocal mic) and a Bulletizer eliminates that problem for harp players. ---------- *************************************************** /Greg
@greg, okay but isn't there a better design? I would say there likely is.
@1847, I still think the sm57 is a great harp mic. But the turner mic I just bought is between 70 to 75 years old and still works great. No moving parts and solid. But the sm57 is still a kick butt harp mic. I just think that the engineers could tweak it a little to make it less prone to damage from turning grill cover and rotating element.
Last Edited by blueswannabe on Oct 15, 2013 8:59 PM
1847 - Thank you! That's a great sound IMO, and a also a great performance too BTW. You really looked like you were enjoying it.
blueswannabe - thank you also, this kind of direct comparison is enormously helpful, cos we can't go into shops and try these things out.
Both - listening to the 'edge' you get on articulations (it sounds like more with the crystal mic) how much do you think that is the mic, how much the amp giving you that?
i did a comparison recording of all my bullets a few days ago. They sound real different to my ears. i was surprised when i listened to the playback. they sounded similiar. oh maybe this one was a little clearer or that one a little less clear...but i found the differences much less than i hear when i'm playing
Both - listening to the 'edge' you get on articulations (it sounds like more with the crystal mic) how much do you think that is the mic, how much the amp giving you that?
Hiya boys,iv'e got two 545's and a pe54 and the latter just blows the others away,just got more balls etc. Problem is in my experience that no two mics behave or sound the same ,especially vintage!!!
The OLD 545's had a good deal more breakup and color - that was due in part to the head and partly due to the older internal transformers.
the above video i am not really getting an edged sound a small amp needs to be crank up to get that, and it was not up that loud 2 nd of all the 57 does not drive an amp like a crystal jt 30 will. alot of players like a 57 james cotton jason ricci, and others it is a good mic, i had no qualms using it, i was playing in front of my family for the first time, with a band i have never played with before. it gets the job done. one thing i like about it... it has a great feel to it. kinda like a silver dollar, when you hold it in your hand it just has that certain feel, hard to discribe.
there is some good advice in the above post's stoke blues has several of 545's and a pe 45 read what he says.... it blows the others away
greg says the old ones have more break up these mic's will last a lifetime, why not get the best one you can find right off the bat? SOME TIMES YOU CAN FIND THEM FOR UNDER FIFTY BUCKS even if you have to pay more it is going to last you may never need another mic......good luck with that lol i will re post a clip with my champ and a jt 30 definitely a much more brassy sound.
----------
i get a lot of request when i play my harmonica "but i play it anyway"
If you want a cheap mic that will shock you how good it is,get a akai dm-13,go for about $20 sound as good as any expensive mic and man the output is strong!!
1847 - Yes I see. I look forward to hearing your JT30 + Champ sound. I hope I don't like it too much, as currently I'm sold on the 57 (or 545), I agree it fits right in the hand as you say.
stokeblues - PE45? DM13? I think I'll be on the lookout out to add maybe just one older mic if I can find it. That can't lead to addiction can it?
Superbee - I have found the same thing, when I've been recording for A/B comparisons, it seems like big differences heard live are diluted. I've put this down to recording kit/technique, but the reason is not clear.
Last Edited by MindTheGap on Oct 16, 2013 1:12 PM
In the wannabe's fine demo, thanks, the 58 seems cleaner and slightly quieter then the 57. I wonder if this is due to the different grill designs. The ball type 58 may have pop foam inside and the large ball may impeed a tight cup as it may leak out the back. I have a 58 but no 57 to compare. In this demo, I liked the CR the best. JMO. Nice thread...BN
