Re: SM-58 vs. SM-57 vs. small condenser
- From: Ian Bell <ruffrecords@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:54:36 +0100
hank alrich wrote:
Ian Bell <ruffrecords@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
hank alrich wrote:
Keeping in mind that if you hook an SM57 to most contemporary
inexpensive mic preamps, like Mackie, Behringer, etc., you won't get
"that sound". Hook it to an API, a Great River, any pre with a good
transformer front end, which is what the SM57 was designed to look
into, and there is "that sound".
Hi Hank, where did you get this info? Does Shure say the 57 is 'designed
to look into a transformer'?
Name one balanced input microphone preamplifier from the era in which
the SM57 was designed that does not have an input transformer.
I am not sure exactly when the 57 was designed but it was long enough ago I
expect all *balanced* inputs were transformers. I am happy to accept that
the 57 was designed when transformer inputs were the norm in *pro* gear but
that is not the same as designed for a transformer input (as opposed to any
other sort) nor does it mean it is bound to work 'better' looking into a
transformer rather than anything else.
That said, the 57 is primarily a gigging vocal mic and the original version
most likely had a built in transformer to give hi Z output designed to run
unbalanced straight into a valve PA or guitar amp. I don't know its history
but I suspect the 600 ohm version came out later once transistor PAs became
common with lo Z unbalanced inputs, So on balance I think the 57 was *not*
designed to work into a transformer.
An exception is the FMR RNC, which was
intended from the gitgo to work well with the SM57, in spite of the
lack of an input transformer.
Ditto, does FMR say the RNC was 'designed for the SM57'?
I happen to know Mark McQuilken personally and spent a few hours with
him in the window between the prototype of the first RNP, which was a
single channel unit with full-range metering, very high-end specs, a
price for one channel equal to the final production unit's price for two
channels, and the pre-manufacturing prototype of the final RNP. Mark led
me step by step through the units, discussing design goals and tradeoffs
made. The information comes firectly from his mouth.
I'd love to see the references for these.
He stated explicitly that one of his goals for the RNP was that it work
very well with mics designed in a bygone era where transformers balanced
mic pre inputs, the SM57 being the most ubiquitious of such mics. He did
this because SM57's are cheap and reliable and can sound good if
appropriately matched to a preamp, and the whole philosophy of FMR is to
deliver kit that bats above its price-point league to enable less-monied
people to have access to better audio recording tools.
You can ask him about this yourself.
I am happy to take your word for that Hank.
Cheers
Ian
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SM-58 vs. SM-57 vs. small condenser
- From: Agent 86
- Re: SM-58 vs. SM-57 vs. small condenser
- From: hank alrich
- Re: SM-58 vs. SM-57 vs. small condenser
- From: David Morgan \(MAMS\)
- Re: SM-58 vs. SM-57 vs. small condenser
- References:
- SM-58 vs. SM-57 vs. small condenser
- From: ostaz
- Re: SM-58 vs. SM-57 vs. small condenser
- From: Scott Dorsey
- Re: SM-58 vs. SM-57 vs. small condenser
- From: Walt
- Re: SM-58 vs. SM-57 vs. small condenser
- From: hank alrich
- Re: SM-58 vs. SM-57 vs. small condenser
- From: Ian Bell
- Re: SM-58 vs. SM-57 vs. small condenser
- From: hank alrich
- SM-58 vs. SM-57 vs. small condenser
- Prev by Date: Re: MOTU midi timepiece resistor burned
- Next by Date: Re: SM-58 vs. SM-57 vs. small condenser
- Previous by thread: Re: SM-58 vs. SM-57 vs. small condenser
- Next by thread: Re: SM-58 vs. SM-57 vs. small condenser
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|