@@jbtor1 in the comparison with the other microphones summed to mono, I didn’t think the difference was enormous… it actually seemed like the 57 was very comparable! However, I feel like any solo instrument sounds so much better in stereo that it makes it difficult for me to be objective if a stereo and mono track are compared.
Thanks for this Vlog. I refer the setup. I use the "SmartRig+, stereo, Max level" "SUGAR DM-830A microphones x2 (dynamic mic, I don't have SM57) ", "DSLR Canon 5D3 ,mic preamp about +1/4 " This could be done on video and audio at the same file. I just changed the mov of file to mp4 on computer. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DQIKlRLWm9A.html
Amazingly close when in mono. I think my biggest takeaway is that the "expensive" sound in a piano recording comes from the stereo width. Awesome, thanks Jeremy!
Completely agree…the stereo image of the multiple mics was apparent…they were a touch warmer maybe? I also agree that it seems weird to put a 57 on such a beautiful piano…just off…but clearly it would work…and in the live music world it might be more practical because you would have bleed… Awesome video
Adding more mics can often do more damage than good. It would be interesting to hear the Soyuz alone in the position of the 57, as well as the RCA in the same position.
I think this mainly demonstrates perhaps the most important thing to me in recording : the source quality. This piano in this room sounds incredible alone, can't go wrong from there. Garbage in = garbage out
Wonderful comparison. Such a great performance, on a great-sounding instrument, and quite a startling heads-up between the single SM-57 and the stereo-pair-plus-room. Listening in my best cans: I don't doubt that a stereo pair is the default choice for an acoustic piano, but this shoot-out demonstrates (if nothing else) how far one can get with a single mono track for keys, recorded as straightforwardly as possible. Bravo!
Love that big stereo spread, and it still sounds beautiful in mono, but the 57 is surprisingly excellent and holds its own in comparison. It's also a great lesson about how important it is to have a great player on a great instrument above all else.
The stereo 57 vs stereo stereo Soyuz or mono 57 vs mono soyuz would have been a more compelling comparison but it's pretty stunning how similar the trio is to one 57. Also, great sounds record great with just a little care.
Delightful video--what with the beautiful piano, great player, excellent venue, great equipment, and everything expertly set up and operated. Though, like many commentators, I agree the flaw of only having one sm57 was disappointing. After all, a major point here is that maybe you can get a competitive sound with a mic so affordable you can easily own several of them just by making your coffee yourself for a few weeks. That said, my big take away here is that this post saved me, for another few years, to succumbing to having my ears tested--which by the way, I only have done once and that was 30 years ago. Well, I have owned and loved many mics, from beautiful expensive condensers down to throw away $20 dynamic garage bangers. in their proper and best place, because each served an important purpose. But, when it comes recording this lovely scene, l am so thankful to still have ears that can hear the distinctly beautiful representation of the overtones and sympathetic vibrations/reverberations of the piano and the room that came through with the high end mics only. Also, I enjoyed how the lovely and precise high end mics gave greater clarity and definition of the low notes as well. For those who can not hear/enjoy these lovely distinctions, maybe consider buying better headphones, please do check in with a audiologist, and I hope you are being as careful as possible to avoid prolonged exposure to all sounds louder than conversation level. Our ears are infinitely more precious to us than any microphone, piano, or even, dare I say, gorgeous citadel!
57 was the winner in this video/test. Warm but still clear sound. Lately I´ve been using more and more dynamic mics too. I record my vocals with Audix OM3 now. It is great! Warm but still clear. Works great with guitars too.
The expensive tubes in stereo are magic. Yet the single sm57 truly impressed me. I am wildly interested in what a stereo pair of SM57s would sound like. FYI my go to for instruments is a KAM RT1 or CAD CL5.
it looks like we all are wildly interested. It was such a unique set up with the room and that grand...it would have been soooooooo interesting to hear a pair of 57's positioned in the same spot relative to the sound board as the tube mics were!
Awesome….what’s super cool about this is what I have said for decades…. The reason a Shure SM57 is so popular is because it captures the sound of instruments, the way our ear perceives it to be musical. The top and roll off around 17 K actually mimics what most peoples hearing is actually like. And on instruments like snare drums or guitar amps that’s sort of a rolloff shaves off some of the uglier, higher frequency, transients and keeps it sounding smooth and musical. I own a commercial recording studio And lots of high-end microphones when you need something fast and simple it’s going to sound musical and SM 57 is hard to beat.. especially at the price point. The Soyuz and AEA Sounds much more like a higher and traditional recording of a grand piano with Sound. But the SM 57 is still very musical. Thank you for taking the time to do this. I love it.
Honestly to me the 57 sounded a little better but I blame that on possible phasing issues with there being distance between the three-mic setup vs the 57. If you do a stereo 57 test it might be interesting to also do a single “expensive mic” test with both the expensive and 57 in exactly the same place. Another thing that would interest me is to tweak each take from the respective mics with eq, compression etc to get the absolute best sound you can from each to see what a real world application of each mic can achieve.
Awesome man! After much mic jumping I just used my 57 for live vocals last Friday night...loving it. Also liked your whole band recording with a 57 vid. Thanks!
You should try this with the European pendant to the SM57 that used to be on everything but now has been forgotten, probably thanks to the internet being largely dominated by English: the Beyerdynamic M 201 (in all its variants)
Great video. Still on a commercial studio the customer wants to see and use expensive gear, gear he cannot own. We as seasoned professionals on sound, we know… it’s all about the ear not the gear… anyhow. A 57 positioned correctly can stand next to any mic all day long. Cheers
Need to stereo with 57s and then if you still have that $40 blue mic unmodded or any other comparable mic, use that as your mid/room. That would be interesting comparison.
I have found the '57 is going to be the work horse in most situations! I might use it for acoustic guitar over a condenser many times, but it just proves once again that recording on a budget is very doable! If we are not recording it is because WE are stopping ourselves.
As a guitar player who's started to hate the sound of SM57s, I am genuinely surprised to be saying this, but I almost prefer the SM57. The other combination of mics sounds much bigger (it's stereo after all), but that single SM57 sounds like something that would sit in a mix very well.
The mono mix and the 57 would work great in a larger mix. The stereo is something I'd expect in a solo recording or maybe a stripped down jazz band ala Oscar Peterson.
My favorite, most recent, trick is using small diagram condensers (i used the $200 matched pair of Lewitt 040) along the 1/3 and 2/3 lines of the piano behind the hammers, panned hard left and right. Sounded great! Then I blended in a darker dynamic mic down the middle to add in the low end that the small diaphragms struggle to move slow enough to capture. (Think like subwoofer vs full range speakers, smaller is for higher frequencies, larger for lower) Best part is, it's doable in a live setting without feedback! (Especially compared to XY or ORTF stereo configurations) If you have the ability to try it, i highly recommend!
Nicely done. Proves the point. Expensive isn’t always better. Application matters too. Recording? Maybe condensers are better. Live grand against a worship band for FOH - I’d go for SM57 or Beta 57. Especially when your main cluster is right above grand and condensers would pick up all the trash
@@Impractical_Engineer Exactly! I use the Middle position for my main guitar tone. If I need it a little brighter, boom, fifth position. If I want it a little fuller sounding, first position. 2 and 4 are for Funk only. LOL
Very cool video. All of the setups you put those 2 mic configurations in sound beautiful. I can hardly wait for everything you have planned for the stereo 57s. I looked away from the screen a bit so that I could listen. I favor the stereo pair (being a piano player that's how I enjoy hearing a piano) which is why I'm excited for the 57 stereo pair review. The 57 is well respected for good reason. Thanks for making this.
Can’t underestimate how good a well placed 57 is. I knew it was going to sound good but was surprised how well it compared to the super expensive competition.
Back a few years ago in college, I was running sound for chapel services where they had a live band and stage monitors instead of inears ( we quickly remedied that). I had nice condenser mics and tried similar setups to this but nothing worked better then the 57 over one of the large sound holes with the lid closed to be able to actually get the piano up and cutting through the mix. Even when I would later record piano recitals I would always use a 57 in this position panned mono in addition to stereo blue bottle condensers and a room mic just to give the piano a bit more punch and bite and surprisingly more clean low end as well. There’s nothing a 57 can’t do that’s for sure.
The Shure SM-57 never fails to impress me!.! I remember when I first got into recording production and started trying to record. I thought the SM-57 was a crappy microphone because it didn't pick up everything in the room including a pin dropping to the floor. Lol. I was ignorant to the fact that the SM-57 is really great for recording extremely loud sound sources like a blasting guitar speaker cabinet as well as other loud sound sources.
Just proves that your source is way more important than the mic/pre. I'll take that musician/piano and a 57 over expensive mics and average player/piano any day
well the sm57. doesn't work too badly. except that in the lower midrange the resonances of the strings become muddy and filtered. surely due to the directivity of the 57 of axis. this piano is magnificent. thank you for this interesting test.merci for this interesting test.
SM57 sounds old school cuz i think they did use a lot of dynamic mics back in the 60s/70s. The whole point here is if the player and the music is amazing it will ALWAYS sound good.
Yes! Id love to see 2 or 3 sm57 used on this amazing piano. Played by this same pianist. I could listen to him all day long. Also, a $100-ish Dynamic mic shootout between the: SURE SM57 ($99) SURE SM58 ($99) SENNHEISER E609 ($120) HEIL PR20UT ($120) HEIL HANDI MIC ($99) AUDIX I5 ($99) RODE PODMIC ($79) ZOOM ZDM1 ($89) AUDIO TECHNICA AT2040 ($99) ELECTRO VOICE ND44 ($159) ELECTRO VOICE ND46 ($159) I love the focused tone of a dynamic mic. Especially large diaphragm. Not sure how many of these mics you have access to, but it would be an amazing shootout. Most companies will often loan or donate a pair of mics for a comparison review. ....I also wouldnt complain if you tried these same mics on drums, overheads, sax, guitars etc....
The mics sounded great. I expected a very big difference, but aside from the noticeable change between the stereo versus the one 57, compared in mono, the differences were actually very slight. I would like to see this same comparison with 2 57s and compare stereo pair to stereo pair. thanks for another great video.
yah, exactly...plus it was a bit hard to tell in the video, but the positioning of the tube mics over the sound board was different that for the 57. Still, even as disadvantaged as the set up was for the 57, it sounded pretty great.
I think there is a limit for sound quality. If you want to go further in sound quality, then we need to change not the mic but but our human hearing abilities.The relative quality peak has been reached by shure sm57. Sm57 sounded much better, the rest is just a matter of personal preference and tone colour)
Bro haven't even watched it yet but the 57 will surprise everybody and be the winner, that is my prediction. That little beast goes hard and there's a reason it's the industry standard instrument mic
I read the title with one eye and thought this would be a shoot-out between hundred SM57's vs one $10 000 microphone on a grand piano. Please do this next.
yeah, RU-vid does compress the detail of the 017's a bit (I remember very well how clean they sound in person) but they still have a great depth on piano. 57's can close mic just about anything and still be usable.
I am going to bet that if you would have used 3 SM57's in the same postions as the much more expensive mics - I would not have been able to tell much difference at all between them... In mono - I could hardly tell any difference, but when you used the $$ 017 Tubes + R44 mics together in stereo, there was a huge difference (because of being stereo mostly I believe which is what was un-fair to the single SM57 in mono). So with that said, I do think you did an un-fair true comparison with this demonstration. All I am saying is that it would have been very nice to hear 3 SM57's (at $300.00 vs 3 $4,000.00 mics equalling $12,000.00) in the exact same positions as the more expensive ones... ...But absolutely beautiful piano playing for sure, could sit and listen to that all day - wonderful. With all that said - I would love love love to see you do this again using 3 SM57's in stereo like you used the others, and I am sure allot of others would love to see that as well...
I would have loved to have seen the mics placed with more distance, that's where these more expensive microphones will shine, give the mic proper distance to allow the piano sound to develop and I think you'll find the pricier mics to be more effective at picking up the nuance, at that close of range you almost want a duller sounding mic to reduce that pingy mid-range honk, If you had placed those Soyuz mics 3-4 feet back spaced about a foot apart facing the piano then I think you would have had a much different result, and a much more pleasant sound at that. put a 57 in the same position at that distance and you'll end up with a much higher noise floor and less clarity. For a pop sound in a mix I can see the closer mic'ing technique to be useful to have the piano cut through, but for a simple piano ballad or anything with light instrumentation, trying to capture a more full piano sound can be much nicer. Cheers!
I think the piano is quite a bit brighter than I would choose, but…..certainly that’s a matter of taste. It may be the hall is so large that the piano needs to be voiced like you would for a concert hall? Or maybe….it’s the right tone for the intended audience. There’s no doubt that I don’t much care for the way pianos sound on pop records; the old classic Yamaha C7 is, as fine as it is, not really the aesthetic I would shoot for. TL:DR - for me, the result was uncomfortably bright and ‘brittle’ (if that’s a fair adjective) no matter which mics were used. That said, I’m quite sure a lot of folks would not like the results I get from my Steinway B and Earthworks PM40 mic setup - it’s a lot darker than this; I’m prettty happy with it, so… you know….horses for courses.
Thanks for doing a shoot out with a grand piano! It's so hard to find quality shoot outs that are not some random person singing into expensive mics or acoustic guitar. Though I liked the comparison and the pianist very much, that piano is naturally VERY, VERY bright. I kinda missed a lot of the nuances that he might have played because the piano just sounds like it's "screaming" the whole time. I understand choosing pianos is not a reality when you simply don't have a small fortune, but I wonder what the difference in mics would've been with a more balanced piano. At the university where I teach they just bought 2 Steinways "Spirio", $200,000 each, and MAN can you hear the difference!!! I did a shoot out myself with 414s, KM184s and some Samson C02s, and even the Samson sounded kinda ok, though a little superficial and dull. I guess it always goes back to "good musician playing good music on a good instrument, etc..." Enjoyed the playing very much!
You know back in the day of CD's which had a bit rate of 1,411 kpbs (or more up to 9,216 kpbs) you would hear a difference. Streaming music is compressed/down sampled down to just 320kpbs. So when you lose 75% of the quality in streaming that $12,000 microphone isn't going to make much difference IMO. CD's also have a higher dynamic range than a vinyl LP with slightly less frequency range.
What percentage of the 75 is perceivable audibly tho. If sample rate equates to fidelity by way of frequency range, yet human ear’s range is limited then lower sample rate is adequate?
Seems AB pair never was the best way to switch in mono. Need to repeat the experiment with 013 soyuz XY 90 degree pair! I guess we can be surprised! What do you think?
I mean AB pair in mono loses it's low-end because of phase cancelling and 57 sounds way more natural as it has no phase problems. XY pair should be better, right?
Amazed at how good the SM57 sounded. Obviously, the stereo width was a big factor - difficult not to hear that change! But the mono expensive to mono not expensive switch... I'm not sure I could reliably tell if I had a proper blind test. I managed to convince myself that MAYBE the SM57 sounded a little brassier in the high mids region... possibly... but then again, maybe my ears were just wanting to be able to tell A difference. I can't believe I don't own an SM57 now. I guess I'm going to have to go and buy one. Oh, and also tell my studio engineer, next time I'm there, "You know what? I want to record this whole song with just a 57..." :)
Pretty much any mic will sound good (similar) on a loud source close up I figure? Those grands / baby brands are super loud. But yeah doing this on say acoustic guitars or backing up the mics several feet away from source, the differences with surface way more.
Not gonna lie... I hate 57's... but this had a really pleasing intimate vintage feel to it. Then when the tube & ribbons were in mono... it wasn't a super massive difference. a bit more depth, but in mono... it boils down to what you want it to feel like. I think stereo 57's would've been very competitive as well. Pretty surprising actually. As far as budget... cut the expense greatly by getting two Warm C12's and their new WA 44. Personally, I'd use Lauten LA-320's with the WA44. Same idea, same level of quality, way different price. Run those through 3 Neve 511's and you're still well under budget.
Your microphone arrangement with the expensive mics was not mono compatible, so it’s not too surprising that summing to mono took much of the character out. Though it is surprising how closely the result resembled a single SM57. If you had compared to a pair of SM57s in stereo I doubt if the results would be so similar. There are other mic’ing methods that are mono compatible, such as XY and mid/side. If it’s important to have a stereo recording sound good when played through a mono system they should be considered.
Man ….. The prices for those expensive mic’s … one might as well put that money towards getting a nice grand piano …. And t record it with a couple of SM57’s or something …. 🤗
SM57s are amazing! You can totally make a record with them! I've also had good luck with the 12 Gauge Microphones Green12 on upright and grand pianos. They are omnidirectional electret small diaphragm condenser mics that cost an affordable $45 each. -chazroot
wow it sounds like the 57 has a low pass filter of the more expensive ones, plus the transients felt a little well.. less than. that being said i'm curious about a similar shoot out with a $200 condenser mic against these expensive mics. Either way the multi mic way is to get more room and space. The good sound is always the instrument, player, and room first. if those aren't up to par then it doesn't matter how much you spent on the good mics you have.
Here's an idea: stereo SM57 against R88. My money's on AEA. But you need the AEA TRP2 preamps. For real. The imput impedance is 63K Ohms (sixty three thousand), and ridicules any other "mic" preamps (usually 1.2 to 2K ohms). Trust me on this, I know what I'm talking about. (and royers R10 sound fantabulous with this preamp too. ;-) )
@@RecordingStudioLoser The RPQ500 "only" have 10K ohms input impedance. The sound is different, and require a lunchbox with pristine power, but they have built in EQs that help brighten (or destroy) the ribbon mic sound. Enjoy!
As was to be expected, the 12k combo does not sound like 99% better. Much less difference in mono though there is an upper mid forwardness in the 57 that I would not prefer. The expensive stuff sounds bigger and wider. I guess a second 57 would have bankrupted you? Maybe next time!
I think the section that has the most noticeable difference between the sm57 and mono O17&R44 is at 8:00. The mids are quite different to my ear. Which I prefer, I don't know. If you got one of those mono tracks (either sm57 or the $$$ package) to mix in a song, which would you lean toward?
Funny how the SM57 /58 was considered a joke to use in a studio years ago. They are muddy and color the sound in a horrible way. maybe the ones being produced today are better. I admit that I don't know as I will never buy one for studio use. So why has the SM 57 / 58 become so popular. Well back in the day they were the preferred mic for live situations. Simply put, they were the most rugged mic on the market. So what has happened is that everyone saw them being used on stage and assumed that they were chosen for their superior sound. Not the case at all. So now we have musicians that have grown up seeing SM57 / 58 everywhere and believe that they are a quality mic. Of course, once you have this in your head you will never hear the truth. Now granted, with the way streaming butchers the sound, does it really matter?
The piano was a bit bright for my taste (sounded very Yamaha) but I think that was the piano rather than the recording! The SM57 does a great job, I regularly record a Steinway Model D Concert Grand and use a pair of hypercardiods (Neumann KM185) I find the tight polar pattern (similar to the SM57) tames potential phasing issues from reflections off the lid. Would be interesting to hear the same set up with the lid off the piano. I also like to stick an extra mic at the far end of the base strings to aid balancing the tone. Thanks for the video, great test.
That's crazy stupid, I mean the stereo is obviously a huge difference, but when all three mics are summed to mono it is only subtly different. When I put on headphones there is a bit more lows and highs and the midrange is a bit softer. It makes me rethink buying any expensive mics haha
Not a valid test. If you mix in the center an stereo technique, you obtain a lot of cancelations. Basics. There is special stereo techniques to avoid it, developed in the radio eras. Lot of bibliography about it. Sorry but it´s information, no opinion.