the preamp is 50% of the sm57 sound I think . I've try it with a preamp loaded at 50ohms . and it sound like it's a completly different mic !! normally 50ohms is for old ribbon mike . but I find it work very well with the sm57 . an all situation mike do not exist yet ! try your mikes with the source and record with the best one.

they always say sm57 is THE mic for electric guitar and snare drum,
but i've never understood why...i've never had good results with that mic in that situation.
IMVHO the only thing i find sm57 good for is for micing certain types of bass guitar...

The notion of the 57 for snare and gtr comes from the frequency response of the bastard mic. Basically, mid-range.

So there is a standard industry corrolation to associate mid-range instruments with the mic. Because it DOES do and excellent job in that specific range.

But that's all it does. Might as well mic some cardboard.

strange enough, i've actually had good results using it on a floor tom.

"i've actually had good results using it on a floor tom," "i've never had good results," "I have zero use for it," "people just bash it cause it's so popular," "it's completely useless," "you might find a much better but less known product," "they suck, and should always be avoided"

Is this generally the way engineers critique microphones? There was one mention of the way the microphone actually sounds:

gcbv wrote:... the frequency response of the bastard mic. Basically, mid-range.

No one else has said anything about the actual sound produced by this mic compared to other mics. There's been mention of how much worse the SM57 sounds compared to ribbon mics, but little or no explanation of what the actual sound difference is.

Is the difference between these sounds a quantifiable thing? Or is the experience simply that one sounds "good" and the other "bad?" Or is there some combination of a quantifiable difference (mid-range boosts or whatever) and a more ephemeral quality that makes this microphone sound worse, in your opinion (if that is your opinion), than others?

Do you know what I mean? I'm genuinely curious to know what makes one microphone better or worse than another, but so far all I've read is that "they suck, and should always be avoided."

The only test of anything audibly,visibly or tangibly stimulating is experience. Which means, if I get turned on by 6 - 6k mid range frequency response and no low or hi end response, no proximity effect, and the necessity for "post-production", then I would probably like this microphone.
Therefore,expressing the different physical elements of the microphone no more explains if a mic is good or bad then the opinion of several engineers who have used it.
The way an engineer critiques a microphone is he uses it. then decides if he likes it.

You know why? because if you were to tell me all the physical attributes of an AKG 414, about it's several mic patterns, it's frequency response, it's versatility (which is technically an opinion) etc. based on my opinion of microphones in general, i would like this mic. But when I used it, I didn't like it.

C.Hardings

only your own experience could say you if it sucks or not !
sometime I notice a kind of nasal sound with sm57 sometime not , depending the source . ribbon mike tame a little bit the high of some source . Distorded guit sound very well with ribbon because it seems to extract some transients without bad high frequency .sm57 have a peak frequency between 4000hz to 6000hz ( 5 db ) , ribbon are generally almost flat or fall gently to the high
. i find the m160 more open than the sm57 even with the presence peak of the 57 . I find it's more difficult to find the sweet spot with the 57 on a guit amp to avoid the nasal sound but if you have two guitars in a band it could help to record one of them with a ribbon and the other with a sm57 as a close mike. it depend largely of the sound of the source . after that if you notice that every time you try the SM57 you don't obtain the sound you want . (first take care the sound you want is there out of the amp !! ) then the sm57 is not for you. after that every one could live without a sm57 . I don't think it's the mike you absolutely have to get in your arsenal as marketing says. but it is very robust so in a live situation it definitely help.

Do you know what I mean? I'm genuinely curious to know what makes one microphone better or worse than another

Yep, me too.


Some people have made the (correct) point that a microphone is good or bad, relative to the way it performs in a specific situation for which it is best suited (or designed).

example:

i think a distinction should be made between live and recording situtations. why you see them on stages? 'cause they're dynamic mics and cheap, and can take a beating; thats why. as for recording - a small diaphram dynamic mic will give you different results than a ribbon mic or condenser - it's comparing apples to oranges. if you want to compare the 57 to other small diaphram dynamics and you come to the conlusion that, compared to the others, the 57 is bad, fine. but in my limited experience it's a fine mic for what it is.

or

So there is a standard industry corrolation to associate mid-range instruments with the mic. Because it DOES do and excellent job in that specific range.
But that's all it does. Might as well mic some cardboard.

cheers,

cstof

even that is still just an opinion. Which means it can't be taken any more seriously than someone who says they don't like it because "the singer from Bad Company used it and I don't like bad company so i don't use it." - not an actual quote

You know why? even for a small diaphragm dynamic mic in a live setting, micing a primarily mid-ranged instrument, I don't like it.
So again I reiterate, if you use it and like it, then use it.
I feel the same way about ProTools. and prostitutes.

I feel the same way about ProTools. and prostitutes.

That's a valid comparison (you mean: prostitutes are good, right?)

cheers,

cstof