Shure sm57 vs. Neumann u67 | Electric Guitar |
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- E Scott Lindner (www.escottlindner.com) does a mic shootout with an old classic, Shure sm57, versus a Reissue Neumann U67. He puts both mics up on an electric guitar, and you be the judge on the differences in character. Hear the difference between a $100 mic, and a $7,000 mic. Recorded at Pinch Recording (www.pinchrecording.com).
Not even close. The problem with an SM57 is, it's too flat, dull and has that nasty ring in the 1-2k area, which I couldn't hear in your recording here because it's simply not dynamic enough.. but put it in front of a tube amp with distortion and focus on 2k area. Listen again. That's how you can spot it. EQ can't even get rid of that crap without destroying things. That's why people like ribbons such as the Royer, but I think that one is just too fuzzy. Truth is, you need to use some really critical listening skills to hear those jingle bells from hell. Granted, a condenser is likely going to do the same thing, but if a preamp is turned up and the mic is positioned correctly, like away from the source or pointed downwards, that's where you get the cab or room resonance. Use the SM57 in that same way and it will disappear in the mix. That's the difference. They aren't even in the same ballpark as far as I'm concerned.
I wouldn't buy a U67 for electric guitar. Obviously you can use it for electric guitar if you have it. It's the acoustic instruments that will shine on the U67; Violin, Viola, Cello, Upright bass, trumpets, sax, woodwinds, etc. Vocals are dynamite on the U67 and there is a much bigger gap between the SM57 and the U67 for that function. Still we all know everything is source dependent and dependent on the vibe and sonic palette you're going for.
Some acoustic instruments I would use a ribbon mic with. For example my nylon string guitars sound better with a ribbon mic but my steel string sounds better with condenser mics.
@@chrisw5742 nylon guitar is an instrument that would make me reach for my U67, but it all depends on the guitar itself and the room etc. I love ribbons for brass.
67 is better but depending on the song, either mic can be the better servant.
The 57 does an amazing job at holding its own (especially at that price) compared to all mics out there. try running one through a Fearn or NEVE1073 and it'll sound awesome. Yeah, the 67 was what I preferred but as far as which is better - to me - would depend on the context of the full mix and also what EQ you had at your disposal. A 67, like an M49, takes EQ so, so well, which lets you go to more places if you need to or creatively than others like the 57. Just my 3 cents.
unfortunate that a $7,000 microphone doesn't tune your guitar for you.
The 67 sounds clearer
Coming back to this video, I'm hearing a lot more dynamic range with the U67 as well as a more hi-fi, broad band sound. Depending on the style, I think the SM57 may work better if you are looking for less dynamic range like a lot of modern pop/rock.
The low end is smooth and beautiful with the 67 and the whole sound is smoother. The 57 has a lack of low end and is a bit grainy... 100% U67 for me (without thinking price)
I owned a few SM57 mics I bought new back around 1978. What is the difference between those I purchased in 1978 vs the newer SM57 mics of today? Thanks
Good morning, Pinch Recording. surprisingly remarkable video. thank. :)
What mic pres? Any other effects besides the EQ you mentioned?
For this video we used the API mic pres on the console. API 212. No effects.
@@pinchrecording1016 Ok so no comp? Sounds great! Keep up the content! P.S. Sorry about the multiple replies. Having some issues on the mobile.
Love it. Keep them coming sir!! 🙌🙌 very insightful
Test methodology says use the same performance.
Why pay $300 for a steak, lobster, nice bottle of wine and romantic setting when you can get a meal at McDonalds for $5?
Less swearing, more attention to your major noise/sound quality issues.
The dude can’t even tune a guitar.
His guitar is fine for this purpose. I can hear exactly what he’s illustrating.
@@Nick_Sorenson That's not the point. A studio should always be providing crystal-clear audio quality.
@@yishihara55527 i was referring to the guitar tuning and content. It didn’t bother me. The purpose of the video came through fine. I didn’t come to hear Jeff Beck etc. just a mic comparison.
@@Nick_Sorenson But it's not about that! It's about the audio quality provided by a studio!
Loose the bad language and you might even gain credibility as a professional...