A
Alfi27
New member
Never fully understood the SM57's "end all to be all" status when it comes to guitar recording... It emphasizes the right frequencies for guitar, yes, but it doesn't really give an accurate representation of what the rig actually sounds like (to my ears). If you have a rig that doesn't cut well a 57 can definitely help with that, but if you already have a bright guitar, bright amp and for example Vintage 30s, the result can be really brash and fatiguing. In my experience, such a setup requires quite a bit of post EQ to compensate for the high mid accentuation of both the mic and speaker, especially when layering guitars.
I do own four 57s though, so it can't be that bad, right? Don't get me wrong, it isn't. It's a classic for several reasons, but not all of them are sound related. It's cheap, virtually indestructable, and been around since about forever.
In the chase of something "better", I decided to try a Beyerdynamic M201, which arrived today. All cards on the table, to call it a better SM57 is a stretch - because it doesn't really have much in common with a 57 at all. It reminds me more of a condenser than a dynamic mic in some ways, no hyped frequencies anywhere to be found/heard. If you look at the frequency graph, it is nearly flat above 1k which the 57 definitely is not. Those graphs don't tell the whole story though, if you compare the M201 graph to the M160's graph they are almost identical, but they do sound quite different. An M201 and M160 together sound absolutely fantastic though, that is my "57 + 121 setup" at less than half the price. 57 + 160 also works well, of course.
Enough talk, listen to this. M201 first, SM57 second. Excuse the sloppy playing, I never record stuff like this with the intention of posting it anywhere, it's just quick and hasty so I can hear the actual sound asap. You'll probably think the 57 appears to be louder, but it isn't. This is part of the "cutting through ability" of the 57. For this particular style (GNR) I'll admit the 57 works quite well, it's very aggressive and pokey.
PS: Here is a short clip of the M201 and M160 together as well. Sounds like a pretty mix ready tone to me, just needs to be double tracked and I would be more or less ready to record an album
I do own four 57s though, so it can't be that bad, right? Don't get me wrong, it isn't. It's a classic for several reasons, but not all of them are sound related. It's cheap, virtually indestructable, and been around since about forever.
In the chase of something "better", I decided to try a Beyerdynamic M201, which arrived today. All cards on the table, to call it a better SM57 is a stretch - because it doesn't really have much in common with a 57 at all. It reminds me more of a condenser than a dynamic mic in some ways, no hyped frequencies anywhere to be found/heard. If you look at the frequency graph, it is nearly flat above 1k which the 57 definitely is not. Those graphs don't tell the whole story though, if you compare the M201 graph to the M160's graph they are almost identical, but they do sound quite different. An M201 and M160 together sound absolutely fantastic though, that is my "57 + 121 setup" at less than half the price. 57 + 160 also works well, of course.
Enough talk, listen to this. M201 first, SM57 second. Excuse the sloppy playing, I never record stuff like this with the intention of posting it anywhere, it's just quick and hasty so I can hear the actual sound asap. You'll probably think the 57 appears to be louder, but it isn't. This is part of the "cutting through ability" of the 57. For this particular style (GNR) I'll admit the 57 works quite well, it's very aggressive and pokey.
PS: Here is a short clip of the M201 and M160 together as well. Sounds like a pretty mix ready tone to me, just needs to be double tracked and I would be more or less ready to record an album
Last edited: