Re: SM-57 vs. "Butterfield" 545s

I usually plug into the PA so what I have to say probably won't apply if 
you're looking to obtain a chicago amp/mic crunch sound.  My experience 
with this kind of setup has been that it's the combination of the amp 
and mic that determines the tone you get.  This sort of setup would not 
be appropriate for the kind of  "natural acoustic" music I've been 
playing  lately.

Anyway, I have the 545 with the switch which is really handy.  As far as 
sound quality, I'm probably the last person to be able to tell since I 
usually have a harp blasting out of my face and can't really tell how it 
sounds to the audience.   Either I'm really not tuned into such 
subtlties or there really is little difference in the sound quality.   
The SM57 is a little hotter.  I know this because I have to bump up the 
level if I switch from the 545 to the 57.  I'll sometimes use a 58 too.  
I'm not fussy.  I tend to worry more about the FOH mix,  getting a good 
mix in the monitors and blending with the other musicians on stage.  
Once I'm confident of the mix, I can relax and play knowing that the way 
I sound is up to me, and how I use the mic. 

Hope this helps.

Howard Chandler

PL500@xxxxxxx wrote:

> In a message dated 9/22/03 2:43:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> jpl_pagan@xxxxxxxxx writes:
>     hey all,
>        just to cause a ruckus and since i'm really
>     curious, i'd like to ask what you all think of the
>     difference between the modern SM-57 mic and the 545s
>     model that Butterfield used to use (as opposed to a
>     MODERN 545). just wondered if anyone had A/B'd them
>     and had any specific thoughts on how similar or
>     different they are in terms or frequency response,
>     tone, what have you...
>         cheers,
>                --Jp 
> Well.....A ruckus it is!
> I a/bed a Shure 545S with a Shure 57 ( I measure just about all my 
> harp mics against the Shure 57), this was about a year ago so I am 
> going by long term memory. The Shure 545S was:
> 1. On feel: Not too bad considering the extra metal you lug around 
> with it. The Shure 57 was a little bit lighter (go figure!), and 
> cupping each of them was the same due to the mic size on top of either 
> of them.
> 2. On output: I would say the Shure 57 beat out the Shure 545S on 
> output, but it didn't do so by much. The Shure 57 though is a newer 
> one with a newer element and a bit more frequency range, so that also 
> helped it.
> 3. On sound: This is a bit of an apples and oranges deal, but the 
> Shure 545S was a little bit fatter in tone than the Shure 57. The 
> Shure 57 has a better capacity for brightness (again frequency range), 
> but the Shure 545S wasn't that bad in that area either. I have a Shure 
> 545SD which beats both of them soundwise, but it isn't in the 
> comparison. The Shure 545S seemed to compensate for the bottom a bit 
> more, but the Shure 57 seemed to have a delicate wispy top-end when 
> played. The Shure 545S also had this top-end,but it wasn't as pronounced.
>    Conclusion: Buy both microphones, and use the Shure 57 as a spare 
> in case the Shure 545S dies on you. They are both good mics and unless 
> you suck, you will sound good through either of them.
> Andrew

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.