avatar

jaykadis

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 2,430 Member Since:24/01/2011

#22 [url]

Mar 1 17 11:12 AM

Maybe check out the Shure KSM-141s. We use them for student recordings (not the 4006s) and they do surprisingly well. Plus they can be used either omni or cardioid.

Not sure someone picky is going to be satisfied with any mics in that price range, though.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,399 Member Since:04/02/2011

#23 [url]

Mar 1 17 2:58 PM

On that budget, can't go wrong with a pair of good used 414 B-ULS either.

Or AT 4050s, if that proves just out of range budget-wise.

brad allen williams

Quote    Reply   
avatar

mario i

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,581 Member Since:28/01/2011

#24 [url]

Mar 1 17 9:50 PM

Michael, what type of music is he playing?

Ditto on the 414's.

Sennheiser 914's are quite nice.
Beyer MC930 are very smooth sounding.

Unftly never used the Charter Oak...

Ml

Quote    Reply   
avatar

nobturner

Gold Finger

Posts: 389 Member Since:01/02/2011

#25 [url]

Mar 2 17 2:54 AM

soapfoot wrote:
On that budget, can't go wrong with a pair of good used 414 B-ULS either.

 

Depends on the piano. That model of 414 is kind of dark and middy; I've found them useful on a stock C7 where the top end normally takes your scalp off. Otherwise... I think you CAN go wrong with them.

A used pair of Earthworks QTC40's is in that price range (actually, less) and I've found they work well on many pianos. But like singers, what works on one will fail on another. So the picky friend who wants a moderately-priced pair of mics will have to do some testing before throwing down.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

seth

Ruby Baby

Posts: 5,629 Member Since:26/01/2011

#27 [url]

Mar 2 17 12:10 PM

I heard a 9-foot Steinway recorded with Shure KSM-141's, those are the SDCs, right? It sounded spectacular.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

jesse decarlo

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,541 Member Since:24/03/2013

#30 [url]

Mar 4 17 1:42 AM

jaykadis wrote:
Right. Shure has been making some very good microphones recently. They're not all "SM-57/8" any more.

Though not a big 57/58 fan, I like a lot of Shure mics, and they don't even have to be recent. SM81 is still great, and the SM7 is popular for real good reasons. 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,399 Member Since:04/02/2011

#31 [url]

Mar 4 17 9:26 AM

Interestingly, the SM57 and SM7 share very much.

The SM7 adds a humbucking coil to reduce noise, and a larger air volume behind the Unidyne III moving coil element (which both mics share) to extend low-frequency response a little.

And of course the grille is further away from the element, meaning that you can't position it as close to the source as you can an SM57.

As far as I know, that's it. They DO sound different, don't get me wrong. But very much in the same "family" to me.

I was never quite able to relate to the manner in which the old TapeOp/indie/DIYcrowd love to tout the the SM7, and love to hate the SM57. They're almost the same thing! The SM7 was basically designed to be an "improved" SM57 for more demanding broadcast applications, and the two perform very similarly. To me it always defied logic a little, or at least seemed mighty hyperbolic-- like if I were to say a MIM telecaster barely qualified as a guitar, but that an American Standard telecaster were my favorite. Maybe there's something I'm missing!

I think the SM7 is pretty cool. I think the SM57 is pretty cool. They're actually kind of similar. I could understand liking the SM7 a little bit more for some stuff, since it's basically an "improved" SM57. I also personally prefer a good SM57 for some things, like placing right up on the grille of a Marshall cabinet in tandem with an MD421.

IMO/IMO/YMMV etc.

brad allen williams

Quote    Reply   
avatar

maarvold

Aqua Marine

Posts: 3,145 Member Since:23/01/2011

#32 [url]

Mar 4 17 9:39 AM

soapfoot wrote:
Interestingly, the SM57 and SM7 share very much.

The SM7 adds a humbucking coil to reduce noise, and a larger air volume behind the Unidyne III moving coil element (which both mics share) to extend low-frequency response a little.

And of course the grille is further away from the element, meaning that you can't position it as close to the source as you can an SM57.

As far as I know, that's it. They DO sound different, don't get me wrong. But very much in the same "family" to me.

I was never quite able to relate to the manner in which the old TapeOp/indie/DIYcrowd love to tout the the SM7, and love to hate the SM57. They're almost the same thing! The SM7 was basically designed to be an "improved" SM57 for more demanding broadcast applications, and the two perform very similarly. To me it always defied logic a little, or at least seemed mighty hyperbolic-- like if I were to say a MIM telecaster barely qualified as a guitar, but that an American Standard telecaster were my favorite. Maybe there's something I'm missing!

I think the SM7 is pretty cool. I think the SM57 is pretty cool. They're actually kind of similar. I could understand liking the SM7 a little bit more for some stuff, since it's basically an "improved" SM57. I also personally prefer a good SM57 for some things, like placing right up on the grille of a Marshall cabinet in tandem with an MD421.

IMO/IMO/YMMV etc.

 
I've been using SM7 on kick for years though, but wouldn't use a 57 there.  Also. my Beta 52 (and D112) just sit in the drawer.  

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,399 Member Since:04/02/2011

#33 [url]

Mar 4 17 1:49 PM

maarvold wrote:

soapfoot wrote:
Interestingly, the SM57 and SM7 share very much.

The SM7 adds a humbucking coil to reduce noise, and a larger air volume behind the Unidyne III moving coil element (which both mics share) to extend low-frequency response a little.

And of course the grille is further away from the element, meaning that you can't position it as close to the source as you can an SM57.

As far as I know, that's it. They DO sound different, don't get me wrong. But very much in the same "family" to me.

I was never quite able to relate to the manner in which the old TapeOp/indie/DIYcrowd love to tout the the SM7, and love to hate the SM57. They're almost the same thing! The SM7 was basically designed to be an "improved" SM57 for more demanding broadcast applications, and the two perform very similarly. To me it always defied logic a little, or at least seemed mighty hyperbolic-- like if I were to say a MIM telecaster barely qualified as a guitar, but that an American Standard telecaster were my favorite. Maybe there's something I'm missing!

I think the SM7 is pretty cool. I think the SM57 is pretty cool. They're actually kind of similar. I could understand liking the SM7 a little bit more for some stuff, since it's basically an "improved" SM57. I also personally prefer a good SM57 for some things, like placing right up on the grille of a Marshall cabinet in tandem with an MD421.

IMO/IMO/YMMV etc.

 
I've been using SM7 on kick for years though, but wouldn't use a 57 there.  Also. my Beta 52 (and D112) just sit in the drawer.  

Yeah, due to the extra air volume behind the capsule, the SM7 extends a bit lower, and therefore works better on stuff where you want to reproduce a lot of low end.

 

brad allen williams

Quote    Reply   
avatar

zakco

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,099 Member Since:02/03/2011

#35 [url]

Mar 4 17 3:44 PM

In addition to better LF respone, to my ears, the SM7 has a Less aggressive character in the hi mids compared to a 57, which could make either one more useful depending on the application

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,399 Member Since:04/02/2011

#36 [url]

Mar 4 17 3:59 PM

barkleymckay wrote:
Different transformer as well?

There is the addition of a humbucking coil added to mitigate potential hum pickup in locations with heavy electromagnetic radiation.

brad allen williams

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,399 Member Since:04/02/2011

#37 [url]

Mar 4 17 4:01 PM

zakco wrote:
In addition to better LF respone, to my ears, the SM7 has a Less aggressive character in the hi mids compared to a 57, which could make either one more useful depending on the application

FWIW, to do a fair comparison, you'd have to position the SM57 back about 2-3 inches relative to the SM7. The capsule is further from the front of the windscreen and grille in the SM7, and I've long suspected that this is a BIG part of what people perceive in the difference in character between the two mics above the bottom two octaves. 

Also FWIW, 57s themselves changed in this regard quite a bit over the years, IME/IMO. A brand new one from Guitar Center will behave somehwat differently from one made in the late 1960s, and I get the hunch it's not just due to being old. 

brad allen williams

Last Edited By: soapfoot Mar 4 17 4:04 PM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gtoledo3

Aqua Marine

Posts: 4,172 Member Since:23/10/2013

#38 [url]

Mar 4 17 4:11 PM

The SM57's, 58, with a tab transformer will exhibit a pronounced lack of hum in scenarios where stock will hum away. Even though the SM7 gets its hum reduction through the cartridge apparently, it is also possible to reduce/eliminate the hum with that transformer mod. I think the end result winds up being pretty similar to an SM7, with greater level.

To me... the lore about 57s and 58s having changed so much is a bit overblown.

I don't knock that there is something to it, but ones I have far post production change to Mexico - that have been well used - sure start to sound much like my old Unidyne III era mics. The idea that a Unidyne III now sells for around 300 bucks seems patently absurd.

Last Edited By: gtoledo3 Mar 4 17 4:23 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

maarvold

Aqua Marine

Posts: 3,145 Member Since:23/01/2011

#40 [url]

Mar 4 17 9:45 PM

barkleymckay wrote:
Different transformer as well?

 
SM7 does not have a transformer.  This was discussed as part of a thread around a year ago.  

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help