SM 57 Frequency Response

[brandondrury]

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?

Well. There are literally thousands of mics out there.

I'm a geek at heart, but also a 'preformer' so I like the emotional aspects of music, but also the tech.

I'm also a "tech" type of dude, but a gravitation towards math and objectivity has little to do with making tremendous sounding recordings.

Roland Juno 106 will easily hit 16HZ! (I blew out an 18" woofer doing it, and the RTA confirmed it)

A human with excellent hearing can only 35Hz if it is 110dB. (LOUD LOUD LOUD!) No human I'm aware of can hear 16Hz. Of course, your Juno wouldn't be recorded with a microphone.

Now if you are not multitracking, the notion of finding one robo accurate microphone could become a bigger deal. If you simple want to capture a realistic image of a sound in the room (like a Nagra might) you are barking up a totally different tree that typical recording done at home. Then the need to blend different pieces and perspectives to fill in the puzzle is diminished to zero.

Brandon

[Madsong]

I would like (and actually am...) respectively questioning yr narative on these grounds: 1) u can FEEL 16Hz, and most people can't hear b-low 40-100Hz anyway, but like any really xpensive car stereo will tell u, u can still feel it. Too much in big traffic...). And there are 1000s of mics, but which do u like? I just think a healthy dialog is good, and since I haven't sampled more than 10,000 mics I would like 2 know what others think

2) real recording situations don't always have 2B mutitracked monstrosities (that I grew up w/ and liked, ELO anyone?) One of the best 'hard rock' recordings I've heard on an amazing system is the title track from AC/DCs 'Highway to Hell'. It's dry as a 'funeral drum' (thanks Rog 4 the meta4), but sounds fantastic thru a really nice system. I would like to know what mics and board they were wrkng with. My offhand guess wld b SM57s and a Studer board, but they're Aussie, so who knows (jst kiddin lads).

3) And a PS: u can find good used stuff on eBay and Audiogon/Videogon if yr interested.... And my Juno was miked with a Senn drum mic and did register 16Hz, which did blow up the 18" woofer. Not 2 brag, but it's possible, so try sumore dynamic mics, maybe..it's good in the end if the end is good...and many good recordings come from home! It use to take $1000 of bux to make a decent recording, but as u kno, and I'm just discovering, it only takes a few $ and ingenuity to make what u want to make. I have been a bit spoiled by really good systems and recording environments, but some of the best recordings I (IMHO) have heard were made cheeply and in less than spectaculr environments. All of the Meters stuff (no offns Al), a lot of the Stones 60s stuff, etc. So I'll stop now, and jst say keep on keepin on.

Thnx again Brandon 4 yr input and inspiration.

Brian

[brandondrury]

1) u can FEEL 16Hz, and most people can't hear b-low 40-100Hz anyway, but like any really xpensive car stereo will tell u, u can still feel it. Too much in big traffic...).

Okay, you may be right about that, but I KNOW I don't want to feel my guitar tracks in the subsonic region. That would be a muddy mess! Snare drums, guitar amps, and vocals would sound TERRIBLE if they were shaking your house. It's extremely common to put high pass filters on every one of these. In fact, many mastering engineers will put a high pass filter on at 20-30Hz on an entire mix. Why? Because it sounds bad to their ears. We are talking about robo pro, Grammy winning mastering dudes here.

2) real recording situations don't always have 2B mutitracked monstrosities (that I grew up w/ and liked, ELO anyone?) One of the best 'hard rock' recordings I've heard on an amazing system is the title track from AC/DCs 'Highway to Hell'. It's dry as a 'funeral drum' (thanks Rog 4 the meta4), but sounds fantastic thru a really nice system. I would like to know what mics and board they were wrkng with. My offhand guess wld b SM57s and a Studer board, but they're Aussie, so who knows (jst kiddin lads).

There is a big difference between multi-tracked and multi-mic'd. The Beatles first recordings were on wax cylinders. The mix was finished immediately after the recording, but they were still combining multiple mics mixed together through a console.

Highway to Hell does sound good. The younger guys (like myself) prefer the Back In Black sound, but that's subjective. I too would like to know what they used, but I can gaurantee you that they were using mics with character and not mics that simply picked up 1-100Khz for the sake of chasing the "fidelity" pipe dream.

And my Juno was miked with a Senn drum mic and did register 16Hz, which did blow up the 18" woofer. Not 2 brag, but it's possible,

It may be possible to get 16Hz. In all likelihood that mic was picking up lower harmonics of 32Hz and 64Hz. Of course, 1Hz (or way less) is possible with your typical electronics sine wave generator. That's irrelevant. The fact is a 16Hz signal would NEVER make it's way onto a recording I would do because it would sound horrible, no one could hear, and very few people could even feel lit.

You need to understand that you are in "theory mode" right now. It's one thing to plan a battle safely in the command center. It's another thing when the Nazis are blowing the hell out of your foxhole. This theory stuff is fun and a person should engage it from time to time. However, you have WAY WAY WAY bigger issues to deal with in regard to "fidelity" than whether your mics are picking up stuff you can't even hear.

[Madsong]

1st, i want to say how much i like this dialog (seriously!). u obviosly have done some recording. But, and a big Butt, I don't think most 'Grammy' winning records sound good, at all. They're overcompressed at best. Likewise, I don't like my music to be overhyped all of the time. (Santana's Supernatural is a crime of reproduction, but might sound ok in yr soccer mom,s suv) Sometimes, yeah? But u listen to Physical Graffitti, Toys in the attic, etc. that's the good stuff, not theoritical: reality! They might not have used superalnatural mics, I'm just asking what u, or others use? SM57s are pretty cheap nowadays, Earthworks and Rodes, much more. But what do yr listeners think?

Sorry 4 the correction, and I mean no disrespect, but my under 20Hz was a synth, not a guit, which probably can never hit b-low 40?hz. Most bass guitars can't. Also, as Neopoleon said, who u can not argue was a great genral, (much more of a killing machine than Christina or Britney?) it's only a plan until the shooting starts....

In all respect, and I really! like this dialog, maybe check other recordings out b4 u publish a book. There are really good stuff out there other than the top 100. Checi tiout

Brian

[brandondrury]

I don't think most 'Grammy' winning records sound good, at all.

Ever? The Grammy Awards have been going on for like 50 years. Most people had some era of popular music that did effect them even if they grow into other things. As far as brand new productions are concerned, some are WAY overcompressed. Some are great. It just depends.

This is getting off course. This thread is about the question "Is the SM 57 useless because it is not a full range mic?".

I've thrown quite a bit of reasoning your way, but you won't really understand this until you are trying to fit 5-50 tracks together into something remotely musically effective. Your arguments are similar to the arguments for 96Khz sample rates verse 44.1 or 48k. However, difference between 96K and 44.1K is NOTHING unless you have each and every other duck in a row.

maybe check other recordings out b4 u publish a book.

Wow! This statement takes A LOT of balls. I have to admit that this kind of talk doesn't show up much on the forum. You have to make A LOT of blind assumptions to question my qualifications to write a book based off one little forum thread. I'm not an insecure guy and I understand that it's easy to take web stuff the wrong way. I don't take things the wrong way very often. However, I don't think there is any other way to interpret this than flat out confrontational. I'm curious how you've deduced a limited experience in music listening based off the text I've written up to this point.

Brandon