|
Post by svart on Jun 14, 2018 8:08:46 GMT -6
Yes and no. A good mic doesn't reveal itself at all. it's like a freshly cleaned window that you can see through without having to look around fingerprints and smudges. But a good mic can also be the wrong mic for a job too, which is why there are many choices to use among the pro level mics available. More window analogies: You might want a nice clean window for one thing, but a magnifying glass for another. Both could have fingerprints that hurt you more than help.. i dunno, i have mics that just sound good everywhere and on everything. i can't see them ever being the wrong mic for a job. they have something special going on. when i look at what they have in common they all have a relatively flat responses and have excellent off axis sound quality. Could you use a 57 and a U87 to record distorted guitar? Sure, and both would have a good starting point, but the U87 would be too boomy and fizzy and without the pronounced midrange the 57 has. You'd end up using a lot more EQ on the U87 than the 57 to get it to fit in the mix IMHO. So while both are pro level mics, one would fit the job better than the other I think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 9:30:59 GMT -6
OT but how can you tell if a mic has good/bad off axis sound quality? What are you listening for here? 'Phaseiness' of things not in front of the mic? Or is it in the specs? (I must admit to never having grokked mic polar pattern diagrams, perhaps I should spend more time with them.)
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Jun 14, 2018 10:04:00 GMT -6
OT but how can you tell if a mic has good/bad off axis sound quality? What are you listening for here? 'Phaseiness' of things not in front of the mic? Or is it in the specs? (I must admit to never having grokked mic polar pattern diagrams, perhaps I should spend more time with them.) For me using MD421 on toms, the off-axis was the cymbal bleed. They just sounded awful. That mic sounds good straight on but it's pickup from the sides starts getting edgy and just sort of strange. maybe its a phase thing or just a weird shift in the frequency spectrum. The ATM230 used in the same position doesn't have offensive off-axis sound. The cymbal bleed sounds normal. Thus, I don't have to gate them as heavy.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jun 14, 2018 11:50:01 GMT -6
i reckon a good mic reveals itself in about 3 seconds flat. Part of me hates to reply to what might be simply an offhand comment, but I'll register a "hell no it doesn't"---and it's also why I've basically given up after years of futzing with new "home studio aimed" mics....good mics reveal themselves in source to source, day to day, consistency of delivery. I did tracks with modern mics of all price points that sounded STELLAR....AND....the next session, or the next person's voice or the other acoustic, or just the other contextually strummed rather than picked SAME acoustic....was unusably bad. The best mics are the ones that will yield a useably good track 98% of the time. NOT ones that sound amazing special sauce worthy magical once in a while. This DOES, though, change the discussion about what makes a good mic for a PROJECT studio--where you're likely going to be recording a handful of sources over and over again. But, I don't think it changes that basic principle--as a singer, I can tell you that my voice changes on a daily basis. Different times of day....different ranges....point being, the "best mic for just recording my voice" is STILL the one that can deliver consistently solid tracks session after session. Some of my fave (sounding) vocal tracks I've done were with my old 414eb....BUT....it's not consistent with me. I have no idea what stars aligned to make those full bodied yet breathy tracks. The Gefell UM70 or Sm7b deliver useable results every time--and honestly, the difference in sound is fairly trivial between the two. Anyway--IME, the idea of a good mic is often just the one that consistently delivers. Not the one with "special sauce" for a given source.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 14, 2018 12:15:29 GMT -6
i dunno, i have mics that just sound good everywhere and on everything. i can't see them ever being the wrong mic for a job. they have something special going on. when i look at what they have in common they all have a relatively flat responses and have excellent off axis sound quality. Could you use a 57 and a U87 to record distorted guitar? Sure, and both would have a good starting point, but the U87 would be too boomy and fizzy and without the pronounced midrange the 57 has. You'd end up using a lot more EQ on the U87 than the 57 to get it to fit in the mix IMHO. So while both are pro level mics, one would fit the job better than the other I think. why not use both?
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jun 14, 2018 12:59:17 GMT -6
Thanks guys. I edited my original post which added... I actually came out over a $1000 ahead(!), buying/selling vocal microphones, over the years. So I got PAID to "rent them". Also the ONE microphone I do regret selling was the mighty M88(TG)-in primo condition-for what I paid for it-$150 (yikes!). Around 10 years ago, when I sold the M88, I was one of the few who have sibilant issues with that microphone. In the meantime, my voice although still bright, has darkened with age and now I bet it would be great!
Also I'm "one of those singers", where a number of dynamic microphones sound really good on my voice. One of the best signal chains, I got to sing into, was SM7>Little Labs LMNO pre. I have two legit vocal ranges, Light Baritone (Baryton-Martin) and a "full" Lyric Baritone, so the plus is that I'm versatile in tonality (tenorish to deep baritone)... But the flip side is that different vocal microphones for different keys, sometimes sound best on me.
The closest "one size fits all" vocal microphones for me (so far) I'd love to have someday, are the Bock iFET (or Neumann 47 FET), Flea 12, and the AEA 44 ribbon.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 14, 2018 13:19:29 GMT -6
OT but how can you tell if a mic has good/bad off axis sound quality? What are you listening for here? 'Phaseiness' of things not in front of the mic? Or is it in the specs? (I must admit to never having grokked mic polar pattern diagrams, perhaps I should spend more time with them.) Off axis sound quality. Put the mic up in an average live-ish room. record some stuff that's off-axis. Record some stuff that's a yard or so from the mic. Play it back and listen to the room tone. Does it sound like what you heard in the room during recording? If it doesn't, well, that's your off-axis sound. Does it sound like a nice, natural reverberation? If it does, you have good off-axis sound. It's not rocket science.
Put the mic on a rack tom and take a few jhits on a cvymbal. Does the cymbal sound funny? Put the mic on a snare drum and hit the hi-hat a few times. Is it a good, usable hi-hat tone? If it's a KM-84 it will be if the mic isn't broken. If it isn't you have bad off-axis sound. Again, not rocket science.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 14, 2018 13:32:54 GMT -6
Could you use a 57 and a U87 to record distorted guitar? Sure, and both would have a good starting point, but the U87 would be too boomy and fizzy and without the pronounced midrange the 57 has. You'd end up using a lot more EQ on the U87 than the 57 to get it to fit in the mix IMHO. So while both are pro level mics, one would fit the job better than the other I think. why not use both? Phase issues. I've tried so many times over the years to use parallel mics and I just don't like the result. I can get one mic to work better in a mix than multiples.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 14, 2018 13:37:45 GMT -6
A note on the SM-57. It's ubiquitous and a lot of people use it for a lot of things. It's very poorly suited for many of them; it's really more or less a one-trick pony. It does a certain presence/compression thing on loud close miced electric guitars that is very popular. It does the same thing on close miced drums that a lot of people use but I personally don't like because I don't like drums that sound like cardboard boxes anymore. For almost anything else except what it was originally intended for, which was a podium mic, it's anywhere from mediocre to terrible yet people persist on using it for things it's totally unsuited for, like acoustic stringed instruments. Everybody shoud own one, they're cheap, but contrary to popular opinion they're not vey good on most things. I have four, plus 3 56s and a 545L, which is a transformerless lavalier version of the Unidyne III. The 545L makes a great blues harp mic. My lead guitarist uses a 56 for live backup vocal, which it does as well as a 58. The rest sit in my mic box all the time. They get used for live club gigs but rarely in the studio.
I think one of the reasons they're so popular is that they're extremely common in club PA systems, where they get used for nearly everything becuase, well, it's a club PA, innit?
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 14, 2018 14:17:55 GMT -6
A note on thge SM-57. It's ubiquitous and a lot of people use it for a lot of things. It's very poorly suited for many of them; it's really more or less a one-trick pony. It does a certain presence/compression thing on loud close miced electric guitars that is very popular. It does the same thing on close miced drums that a lot of people use but I personally don't like because I don't like drums that sound like cardboard boxes anymore. For almost anything else except what it was originally intended for, which was a podium mic, it's anywhere from mediocre to terrible yet people persist on using it for things it's totally unsuited for, like acoustic stringed instruments. Everybody shoud own one, they're cheap, but contrary to popular opinion they're not vey good on most things. I have four, plus 3 56s and a 545L, which is a transformerless lavalier version of the Unidyne III. The 545L makes a great blues harp mic. My lead guitarist uses a 56 for live backuip vocal, which it does as well as a 58. The rest sit in my mic box all the time. They get used for live club gigs but rarely in the studio.
I think one of the reasons they're so popular is that they're extremely common in club PA systems, where they get used for nearly everything becuase, well, it's a club PA, innit?
The unidyne 3 or 545(non L) is a 57 with no transformer. Remove the transformer of a 57 and it sounds a lot more like a UIII.. Also, 57's and their kin were designed around the days of 600R terminations.. I almost always have a 600 ohm -6dB pad on the output of mine. it really shapes up the sound IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jun 14, 2018 14:44:58 GMT -6
A note on thge SM-57. It's ubiquitous and a lot of people use it for a lot of things. It's very poorly suited for many of them; it's really more or less a one-trick pony. It does a certain presence/compression thing on loud close miced electric guitars that is very popular. It does the same thing on close miced drums that a lot of people use but I personally don't like because I don't like drums that sound like cardboard boxes anymore. For almost anything else except what it was originally intended for, which was a podium mic, it's anywhere from mediocre to terrible yet people persist on using it for things it's totally unsuited for, like acoustic stringed instruments. Everybody shoud own one, they're cheap, but contrary to popular opinion they're not vey good on most things. I have four, plus 3 56s and a 545L, which is a transformerless lavalier version of the Unidyne III. The 545L makes a great blues harp mic. My lead guitarist uses a 56 for live backuip vocal, which it does as well as a 58. The rest sit in my mic box all the time. They get used for live club gigs but rarely in the studio.
I think one of the reasons they're so popular is that they're extremely common in club PA systems, where they get used for nearly everything becuase, well, it's a club PA, innit?
The unidyne 3 or 545(non L) is a 57 with no transformer. Remove the transformer of a 57 and it sounds a lot more like a UIII.. Also, 57's and their kin were designed around the days of 600R terminations.. I almost always have a 600 ohm -6dB pad on the output of mine. it really shapes up the sound IMO.
Very important piece of info. Totally changes the mic sound by putting at 600R. Thats why Shure came out with the Beta57/58s. And thats also why they sound way better too. Yes okay, they aren't the exact same mic, but still.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jun 14, 2018 15:02:22 GMT -6
I still think the Brian Wilson "solo" lead vocals on Pet Sounds, sounded great on the humble Shure 545. (that AE Chuck Britz used)
Same thing for Paul Rodger's lead vocals on a SM57. I went to a L.A. cocktail party, where some music industry folks attended, and someone was an assistant AE at Capitol, confirmed they shot out their mic cabinet for him. Paul stuck with a trusty '57 and sounded stellar.
Plus John Lennon had his infamous "cracked" SM57.
Always thought Daryl's vocal on "Sarah Smile" sounded A-1 on a 57 too. Chris
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Jun 14, 2018 15:45:18 GMT -6
OT but how can you tell if a mic has good/bad off axis sound quality? What are you listening for here? 'Phaseiness' of things not in front of the mic? Or is it in the specs? (I must admit to never having grokked mic polar pattern diagrams, perhaps I should spend more time with them.) For me its not the polar patter but the sound of the off axis. Some mics you can hear artifacts and some have a sense of space.
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Jun 14, 2018 15:48:53 GMT -6
i reckon a good mic reveals itself in about 3 seconds flat. Part of me hates to reply to what might be simply an offhand comment, but I'll register a "hell no it doesn't"---and it's also why I've basically given up after years of futzing with new "home studio aimed" mics....good mics reveal themselves in source to source, day to day, consistency of delivery. I did tracks with modern mics of all price points that sounded STELLAR....AND....the next session, or the next person's voice or the other acoustic, or just the other contextually strummed rather than picked SAME acoustic....was unusably bad. The best mics are the ones that will yield a useably good track 98% of the time. NOT ones that sound amazing special sauce worthy magical once in a while. This DOES, though, change the discussion about what makes a good mic for a PROJECT studio--where you're likely going to be recording a handful of sources over and over again. But, I don't think it changes that basic principle--as a singer, I can tell you that my voice changes on a daily basis. Different times of day....different ranges....point being, the "best mic for just recording my voice" is STILL the one that can deliver consistently solid tracks session after session. Some of my fave (sounding) vocal tracks I've done were with my old 414eb....BUT....it's not consistent with me. I have no idea what stars aligned to make those full bodied yet breathy tracks. The Gefell UM70 or Sm7b deliver useable results every time--and honestly, the difference in sound is fairly trivial between the two. Anyway--IME, the idea of a good mic is often just the one that consistently delivers. Not the one with "special sauce" for a given source. Using mics with eq'd response patterns that is my experience too. So I stopped using them.
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Jun 14, 2018 15:51:46 GMT -6
i dunno, i have mics that just sound good everywhere and on everything. i can't see them ever being the wrong mic for a job. they have something special going on. when i look at what they have in common they all have a relatively flat responses and have excellent off axis sound quality. Could you use a 57 and a U87 to record distorted guitar? Sure, and both would have a good starting point, but the U87 would be too boomy and fizzy and without the pronounced midrange the 57 has. You'd end up using a lot more EQ on the U87 than the 57 to get it to fit in the mix IMHO. So while both are pro level mics, one would fit the job better than the other I think. I just don't go for sm57 on the whole and for condensers I use the same mic I use on overheads and vocals. I don't have enough to go around so I need maybe another 2.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 14, 2018 16:22:57 GMT -6
A note on thge SM-57. It's ubiquitous and a lot of people use it for a lot of things. It's very poorly suited for many of them; it's really more or less a one-trick pony. It does a certain presence/compression thing on loud close miced electric guitars that is very popular. It does the same thing on close miced drums that a lot of people use but I personally don't like because I don't like drums that sound like cardboard boxes anymore. For almost anything else except what it was originally intended for, which was a podium mic, it's anywhere from mediocre to terrible yet people persist on using it for things it's totally unsuited for, like acoustic stringed instruments. Everybody shoud own one, they're cheap, but contrary to popular opinion they're not vey good on most things. I have four, plus 3 56s and a 545L, which is a transformerless lavalier version of the Unidyne III. The 545L makes a great blues harp mic. My lead guitarist uses a 56 for live backuip vocal, which it does as well as a 58. The rest sit in my mic box all the time. They get used for live club gigs but rarely in the studio.
I think one of the reasons they're so popular is that they're extremely common in club PA systems, where they get used for nearly everything becuase, well, it's a club PA, innit?
The unidyne 3 or 545(non L) is a 57 with no transformer. Remove the transformer of a 57 and it sounds a lot more like a UIII.. Also, 57's and their kin were designed around the days of 600R terminations.. I almost always have a 600 ohm -6dB pad on the output of mine. it really shapes up the sound IMO. Not exactly. I've done a LOT of surgery on Unidyne IIIs and SM57s, so I'm quite familiar with the differrences. There are several versions of the 545. AFAIK the 545L is the only one that is tyransformerless from the factory. The old ones witrh the Amphenol connectors came in four versions. There was a high impedance only with a three pin connector. There was a low impedance only with a three pin, although those are rare. There was a dual impedance version with a four pin connector that you switched impedance by your choice of cable. All these were pistol grip, stand mounted mics and all had transformers. There were also variants with or without on-off switches. There was also a hand held with the four pin that was dual impedance, with transformer. This was replaced by a dual impedance with an XLR that changed impedance by pulling out the XLR and changing one wire that plugged onto pin 3 (IIRC) of the the XLR connector instead of being soldered. Obviously, this also had a transformer. One major difference between a 545 and a modern 57 is that the 545 had a copper voice coil, while modern 57s have aluminum. IIRC the very old 57s also used copper, although I can't find documentation to prove it.
Note that NONE of these mics are transformerless. Back in the '70s and early '80s I used to buy the relatively useless high impedance only mics at the flea market for dirt cheap and convert them to transformerless low impedance by ripping out the transformer and converting the connector to XLR using a now discontinued Switchcraft adaptor that replaced athe amphenol insert and was secured by the ring from the old cable connector. I believe the Switchcraft number was Q3M, but I won't totally swear to it. Shortly after this a fad for transformerless 57s/Unidyne IIIs swept the Bay Area, got published in one of the audio mags, and became commonplaced. The mics sounded better without the transformer, although the output dropped significantly. Also, in my opinioon, the copper VC sounds better than aluminum.
I don't think any of this has any effect on off axis response, but back then I was doing mostly nightclub sound and didn't care.
In the mid '80s Shure made some significant changes to the 57 capsule after I showed a couple of Shure reps how I fixed broken capsules with lead-out wires broken by "rotating head disease". I believe this is probably also when Shure went to an aluminum VC.
Also, right about that time Shure introduced two series of budget priced, transformerless mics with aluminum VCs and faux-velvet finishes. One series was the 7x seies, I forget the other designation. One series was black, the other light brown or tan.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 14, 2018 16:24:33 GMT -6
Could you use a 57 and a U87 to record distorted guitar? Sure, and both would have a good starting point, but the U87 would be too boomy and fizzy and without the pronounced midrange the 57 has. You'd end up using a lot more EQ on the U87 than the 57 to get it to fit in the mix IMHO. So while both are pro level mics, one would fit the job better than the other I think. I just don't go for sm57 on the whole and for condensers I use the same mic I use on overheads and vocals. I don't have enough to go around so I need maybe another 2. OF COURSE you need another couple of mics. You can never have enough microphones.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 14, 2018 16:25:39 GMT -6
Part of me hates to reply to what might be simply an offhand comment, but I'll register a "hell no it doesn't"---and it's also why I've basically given up after years of futzing with new "home studio aimed" mics....good mics reveal themselves in source to source, day to day, consistency of delivery. I did tracks with modern mics of all price points that sounded STELLAR....AND....the next session, or the next person's voice or the other acoustic, or just the other contextually strummed rather than picked SAME acoustic....was unusably bad. The best mics are the ones that will yield a useably good track 98% of the time. NOT ones that sound amazing special sauce worthy magical once in a while. This DOES, though, change the discussion about what makes a good mic for a PROJECT studio--where you're likely going to be recording a handful of sources over and over again. But, I don't think it changes that basic principle--as a singer, I can tell you that my voice changes on a daily basis. Different times of day....different ranges....point being, the "best mic for just recording my voice" is STILL the one that can deliver consistently solid tracks session after session. Some of my fave (sounding) vocal tracks I've done were with my old 414eb....BUT....it's not consistent with me. I have no idea what stars aligned to make those full bodied yet breathy tracks. The Gefell UM70 or Sm7b deliver useable results every time--and honestly, the difference in sound is fairly trivial between the two. Anyway--IME, the idea of a good mic is often just the one that consistently delivers. Not the one with "special sauce" for a given source. Using mics with eq'd response patterns that is my experience too. So I stopped using them. "EQed resaponse" - Ugh!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 14, 2018 16:33:25 GMT -6
Very important piece of info. Totally changes the mic sound by putting at 600R. Thats why Shure came out with the Beta57/58s. And thats also why they sound way better too. Yes okay, they aren't the exact same mic, but still. I HATE Beta 57s and 58s. Horrible, horrible microphones. Really rasty, obnoxiously hyped presence peak. They do all the things I DON'T want a vocal (or guitar) mic to do. When my band plays clubs we carry rergular 57s and 58s so that if the club doesn't have any nice mics - most don't - at least we wont's have tp put up with those godawful Betas.
Me, I use an M88TG live.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 14, 2018 17:28:35 GMT -6
The unidyne 3 or 545(non L) is a 57 with no transformer. Remove the transformer of a 57 and it sounds a lot more like a UIII.. Also, 57's and their kin were designed around the days of 600R terminations.. I almost always have a 600 ohm -6dB pad on the output of mine. it really shapes up the sound IMO. Not exactly. I've done a LOT of surgery on Unidyne IIIs and SM57s, so I'm quite familiar with the differrences. There are several versions of the 545. AFAIK the 545L is the only one that is tyransformerless from the factory. The old ones witrh the Amphenol connectors came in four versions. There was a high impedance only with a three pin connector. There was a low impedance only with a three pin, although those are rare. There was a dual impedance version with a four pin connector that you switched impedance by your choice of cable. All these were pistol grip, stand mounted mics and all had transformers. There were also variants with or without on-off switches. There was also a hand held with the four pin that was dual impedance, with transformer. This was replaced by a dual impedance with an XLR that changed impedance by pulling out the XLR and changing one wire that plugged onto pin 3 (IIRC) of the the XLR connector instead of being soldered. Obviously, this also had a transformer. One major difference between a 545 and a modern 57 is that the 545 had a copper voice coil, while modern 57s have aluminum. IIRC the very old 57s also used copper, although I can't find documentation to prove it.
Note that NONE of these mics are transformerless. Back in the '70s and early '80s I used to buy the relatively useless high impedance only mics at the flea market for dirt cheap and convert them to transformerless low impedance by ripping out the transformer and converting the connector to XLR using a now discontinued Switchcraft adaptor that replaced athe amphenol insert and was secured by the ring from the old cable connector. I believe the Switchcraft number was Q3M, but I won't totally swear to it. Shortly after this a fad for transformerless 57s/Unidyne IIIs swept the Bay Area, got published in one of the audio mags, and became commonplaced. The mics sounded better without the transformer, although the output dropped significantly. Also, in my opinioon, the copper VC sounds better than aluminum.
I don't think any of this has any effect on off axis response, but back then I was doing mostly nightclub sound and didn't care.
In the mid '80s Shure made some significant changes to the 57 capsule after I showed a couple of Shure reps how I fixed broken capsules with lead-out wires broken by "rotating head disease". I believe this is probably also when Shure went to an aluminum VC.
Also, right about that time Shure introduced two series of budget priced, transformerless mics with aluminum VCs and faux-velvet finishes. One series was the 7x seies, I forget the other designation. One series was black, the other light brown or tan.
I'll have to take your word on it. I had a 545 that was eventually stolen, and a unidyne iii with the elbow that I sold, both factory XLR, and neither had a transformer. The insides were clean like there had never been one either.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jun 14, 2018 18:56:00 GMT -6
i dunno, i have mics that just sound good everywhere and on everything. i can't see them ever being the wrong mic for a job. they have something special going on. when i look at what they have in common they all have a relatively flat responses and have excellent off axis sound quality. Could you use a 57 and a U87 to record distorted guitar? Sure, and both would have a good starting point, but the U87 would be too boomy and fizzy and without the pronounced midrange the 57 has. You'd end up using a lot more EQ on the U87 than the 57 to get it to fit in the mix IMHO. So while both are pro level mics, one would fit the job better than the other I think. U87 and 67 were used on Back in Black for guitars. That's about the meanest guitar sound there is. Personally my favorite electric guitar mic is the e22s, but I like guitar tracks that sound like the amp.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jun 14, 2018 18:56:51 GMT -6
Beyer M88. Definitely won't suck the room in and you can make a whole album on that single mic! You can record a kick with it, a floor Tom, a bass cab, guitar cab, acoustic guitar, wind chimes and then cut a world class vocal. One of my favorite mics ever. Love it on kick.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jun 14, 2018 19:00:59 GMT -6
Um....I didn’t imean in any way suggest the mic was broken OR that he should fix it. I pointed out the fact that Fig8 pattern picks up less room than cardioid. Well it cerainly picks up less sides - but it picks up a LOT more back. Does that equate to "less room"? I don't think so, but it's probably the way you look at it. Or hear it..
As I understand it, the reason guys like William Wittman favor the Coles 4038 for room mics is the amount of room picked up from the rear.
In my experience the 4038 picks up less bad room if you angle it right, but picks up more depth in what it does capture at the same time. Like a wide-angle lens. So, it's great!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 14, 2018 19:02:13 GMT -6
Not exactly. I've done a LOT of surgery on Unidyne IIIs and SM57s, so I'm quite familiar with the differrences. There are several versions of the 545. AFAIK the 545L is the only one that is tyransformerless from the factory. The old ones witrh the Amphenol connectors came in four versions. There was a high impedance only with a three pin connector. There was a low impedance only with a three pin, although those are rare. There was a dual impedance version with a four pin connector that you switched impedance by your choice of cable. All these were pistol grip, stand mounted mics and all had transformers. There were also variants with or without on-off switches. There was also a hand held with the four pin that was dual impedance, with transformer. This was replaced by a dual impedance with an XLR that changed impedance by pulling out the XLR and changing one wire that plugged onto pin 3 (IIRC) of the the XLR connector instead of being soldered. Obviously, this also had a transformer. One major difference between a 545 and a modern 57 is that the 545 had a copper voice coil, while modern 57s have aluminum. IIRC the very old 57s also used copper, although I can't find documentation to prove it.
Note that NONE of these mics are transformerless. Back in the '70s and early '80s I used to buy the relatively useless high impedance only mics at the flea market for dirt cheap and convert them to transformerless low impedance by ripping out the transformer and converting the connector to XLR using a now discontinued Switchcraft adaptor that replaced athe amphenol insert and was secured by the ring from the old cable connector. I believe the Switchcraft number was Q3M, but I won't totally swear to it. Shortly after this a fad for transformerless 57s/Unidyne IIIs swept the Bay Area, got published in one of the audio mags, and became commonplaced. The mics sounded better without the transformer, although the output dropped significantly. Also, in my opinioon, the copper VC sounds better than aluminum.
I don't think any of this has any effect on off axis response, but back then I was doing mostly nightclub sound and didn't care.
In the mid '80s Shure made some significant changes to the 57 capsule after I showed a couple of Shure reps how I fixed broken capsules with lead-out wires broken by "rotating head disease". I believe this is probably also when Shure went to an aluminum VC.
Also, right about that time Shure introduced two series of budget priced, transformerless mics with aluminum VCs and faux-velvet finishes. One series was the 7x seies, I forget the other designation. One series was black, the other light brown or tan.
I'll have to take your word on it. I had a 545 that was eventually stolen, and a unidyne iii with the elbow that I sold, both factory XLR, and neither had a transformer. The insides were clean like there had never been one either. Well, from that I'd assume you did open them. If the insides were clean them the excess mounting wax had been boiled out.
A very large number of them were modified in this way. You can download the original wiring schematics off the internet.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jun 15, 2018 8:46:46 GMT -6
Very important piece of info. Totally changes the mic sound by putting at 600R. Thats why Shure came out with the Beta57/58s. And thats also why they sound way better too. Yes okay, they aren't the exact same mic, but still. I HATE Beta 57s and 58s. Horrible, horrible microphones. Really rasty, obnoxiously hyped presence peak. They do all the things I DON'T want a vocal (or guitar) mic to do. When my band plays clubs we carry rergular 57s and 58s so that if the club doesn't have any nice mics - most don't - at least we wont's have tp put up with those godawful Betas.
Me, I use an M88TG live.
Thats fair. From a live sound engineer stand point, the Beta 57 is a nice mic to use and the 58 fits some singers well. Its like anything else, right mic for the right thing always works. M88 is an underrated mic. I like that mic as well all around on drums. I've never tried it as a vocal, I should.
|
|