SM 57 Frequency Response

[Madsong]

Hello, I'm looking for a good 'lectric gitar mic. I have a good full range mic from e-voice and a good Rodes knock of from Marshall (prob. the same Chinese co.), and a classic SM57, but it doesn't seem to pick up all of the freqs of the E-voice or Rodes knock off. Any advice?

[brandondrury]

This is because the SM 57 has it's own character. That character naturally works very well with electric guitars. It's implied that you want all your mics to sound the same. I'm the opposite. I want all my mics to sound very different.

Brandon

[Madsong]

Actually, Supreme Overlord Commander, I do value the difference in 'different' mics, and like to use different ones according to their values, but would just like a different perspective of mics I haven't tried (yet). I've used the above mentioned mics, as well as direct with COSM devices, but wanted to know what others thought. In fact, I've found J Page's system of using close/distance miking to direct to be very effective when mixed 2gether. It certainly worked 4 Black Dog....The SM57 is a very effective bandpass filter, it cuts off the top and bottom end of the signal more effectivily than the Hilton girls (yaha) but doesn't deliver all of the sound. Just wanted a bit of advice on other mic subjects, they are after all, filters. All are just ideas, the song matters more.....still love the site, thanx for putting, and keeping, it together. ur companion in global recording battles!

Brian

[brandondrury]

Actually, Supreme Overlord Commander,

Someone called me a "systems administrator" the other day. I had to come up with a new name. I figured I'd steal Ike's title.

The SM57 is a very effective bandpass filter, it cuts off the top and bottom end of the signal more effectivily than the Hilton girls (yaha) but doesn't deliver all of the sound.

I think this is an overstatement, specifically the part about "not delivering all the sound". Granted, the SM 57 does have a hell of a proximity effect. When used 2 or 3 feet back from an instrument, you have a natural high pass filter or as least a low shelf. When used up close, you have a natural low end boost that is fairly aggressive. The SM 57 does roll off the air up top as well.

The reason I think your views are overstated on this is because there are quite a few times where we want to ditch these frequencies. In other words, I guess I'm not disagreeing with you, but you are implying that this "not all the sound" is a bad thing. It is more certainly not in quite a few cases.

Just wanted a bit of advice on other mic subjects, they are after all, filters.

I never really though of mics as being "filters" but I can't argue with that statement. They certainly embark their character on a source.

Going back to "not all the sound" you should try out a ribbon mic. You'll QUICKLY realize that these expensive ribbon mics that big boy engineers go nuts over are DEFINITELY not picking up all the sound. Ribbons roll off the high end fairly quickly (at least an overwhelming majority do). This is tough for the beginner to grasp, but as you learn to accept it, your skills improve dramatically.

Brandon

[Madsong]

Actually, I thot the Supreme Overlord Commander was a good tong-inchk pun. But all mics filter sound, 4 better or worse. Some inflect different 'aspects', but they all do not give an accurate picture of the sound heard at the time the human in the studio is hearing it. That does depend on the listerner's ear. A very few xpensive mics have a wide range, but I was asking other home recordists to recommend their experience with home mics (nothing over, lets say, $1000.00). Thanks.

Brian

[Madsong]

One more thing, BTW: An RTA will tell you the SM57s cut off the freq curve at 40Hz (max low, now matter how close) and 12k-14kHz max hi. Most people who are male and over 30 can't hear these freqs anyway (probably another contro statement), so it doesn't matter, but like some good speakers that go up to 100KHz, it's the perceived harmonics that matter more than the actual sound. Listen to the JMLab Utopia series or the B&W Diamonds or KEF Studio series and you will hear the difference. Granted all of these are well w/o my price range (think a new Hyundai, minimum), but worth listening to for comparison.

[rsadasiv]

Mathematically you can express any wave transformation as a filter - I'm not sure how much insight that provides into mic selection.

Here is the frequency response graph for an AES R84 ribbon mic:



Here is the frequency response graph for the SM-57 dynamic mic:



Here is the frequency response graph for the R0de NT1-A large diaphragm condenser mic:

[brandondrury]

Some inflect different 'aspects', but they all do not give an accurate picture of the sound heard at the time the human in the studio is hearing it

Some of this is genre dependent, but I can't think of one major label recording that has ever even hinted at using "accuracy" as a judge for the way a record sounds. You can certainly make "accurate" sounding recordings. Just buy one of those stereo recorders and place it in the room or buy some nice test microphones with perfectly flat response.

I cover this topic fairly heavily in my upcoming recording book.

The reason that big boys use Shure SM 57s and Neumann U47s on the kind of records I buy is because these mics have character overload. The idea is to enhance the performance with this or that character. The idea is to make the instrument sit in a mix with other tracks. Objective, mathematical analysis of fidelity goes out the window in this particular case.

A very few xpensive mics have a wide range, but I was asking other home recordists to recommend their experience with home mics (nothing over, lets say, $1000.00). Thanks.

Home recordist? I'm a home recording dude! ha ha.

Anyway, you are asking for an entire book with that question. You'll need to get more specific.

One more thing, BTW: An RTA will tell you the SM57s cut off the freq curve at 40Hz (max low, now matter how close) and 12k-14kHz max hi.

GREAT! This is AWESOME for keeping the subsonic garbage and super fizzy stuff out! I know your logic appears to make sense, but it isn't really how it works. I can't think of a single instrument that goes 20-20K except maybe drums where actually want all of those frequencies present. Drums are actually great example. It's very common to put a high pass filter on overheads. (I've even done it as high as 500Hz in the past). Why would someone put a high pass filter on overheads? Because the low end getting into the overheads may be muddying up the low end in the kick drum.

This is why the "this mic isn't getting 100% of the spectrum" is a GREAT thing. Because there is more than one piece to the puzzle. Other than bass guitar and kick drum, it wouldn't bother me a bit if every microphone I owned rolled off everything under 100Hz. I LOVE the fact that my Royer R121 ribbon mic ignores the fizz. I like this! It sounds better in most cases!

The fact that certain mics "miss" part of the sound is a great thing!

Brandon

[Madsong]

Hey Brandon,

I appreciate yr logic as well, and I think most people in the 'music game' do it out of an emotional response (love?) and not logic, so different ways to record are usable, and debatable, I was just asking what other people might be using. I do have a 70s SM57, and the freq response is great for guitar and vocals, and so many great recordings have been made w/them, but what else is out there? ie., 2 miking a guitar amp, or vocalist, can yield two diffrnt yet usable sounds, then you can reject them or blend them. One type of mic IMHO, doesn't do it for everything. Sens r great 4 drums, but you might prefer a more 'biased' mic (SM57?) 4 a certain sound. It's only the end product that counts, IMHO. I like Beck (Jeff preferably, but also Hanson) and the Chesky recordings (which are outsanding! as are the MSrecordings, with a few exceptions, they use no pop mastering tricks, no EQ and no compression-check em out?) as well as Weezer, etc. But it's a big wild world of music, I enjoy quite a bit of it.

Thanks Mr. Sadasiv, I'll definitley check out those sites. I'm a geek at heart, but also a 'preformer' so I like the emotional aspects of music, but also the tech. It's interesting to combine the 2.........Thanx again 4 the heads up.

Brian

[Madsong]

1 more thing Brandon (and I really like the bach n 4th, it gets me thinking) but certain labels do go WAY out of there way to accuaretly portray their artists. The use of Nagra recording devices with a straight shot to mic, no BS (compressors, EQ, etc.) in between are laudable. Some examples would be Blue Note, Chesky, MS, Possum and pretty much anything from Acoustic Sounds. Not all of their music is to my liking, but the recording quality thru any good system is chilling, like yr there. I'm not sure if these are 'major labels',. but personally I don't care how much Britney or Paris sells, I just like making (probably, by anyone's standards, crappy) music. These smaller label recordings are refreshing 4 their lack of eq, comps, PITCH CORRECTORS? (if you can only dance, only do that!) and let you hear the music. And, BTW, my Roland Juno 106 will easily hit 16HZ! (I blew out an 18" woofer doing it, and the RTA confirmed it) Only big pipe organs can do that and I'm not really needing a church, haha. Maybe check these guys out, as well as Jacintha, which I use (Danny Boy track) to calibrate really xpensive speakers.

Thanks, I always enjoy the chats on yr site, and am looking to improve my knowledge, and if I can be any help, all the better.

Brian