Sennheiser MD421 vs. Shure SM57...

[tradarama]

What are your thoughts guys? For guitar cab mic....distortion/higher gain. Thanks! Jim

[Scott Peterson]

I have used 57's since I started playing out and recording.

I have used 421's in the studio when the engineer wanted to.

The 421 has more bass and less of a mid-hump; but it has a very definate mid-hump.

The 57 sounds grainy and small sometimes when you solo it out; but in 99.98% of the tracks I do it always fits *very* well. Better in context than alone for sure.

IMHO, I have three 57's that I own and use; they work well enough that I have never considered buying a 421.

Just my opinion.

[T.Wesley]

If you want your guitar tracks to sound like what everybody else expects your guitar tracks to sound like, use an SM57 ... like everybody else.

Me, I don't like 'em. Personal thing, I guess, with my weird ears. I don't think I've used a 421 on anything but drums in my limited recording experience. They're really good for toms!

This is certainly no slag on anybody that uses 57s. For instance, I've got Scott's last album and the guitar tones on it are great! Probably every hit song we've heard on the radio or MTV for the last 20 years has guitars tracked with a 57. I'm just saying I choose not to use them if at all possible.

(Sorry if I sound CYA...I'm still in recovery from the BaM atmosphere.)

--chiba

[LSchefman]

They're both great, it depends how you want to shape the sound of your tracks on any given day.

Another really good choice is the new Audix I-5.

[GaryNattrass]

I find the whole Senny 421 thing SO funny, it was designed to be an in-vision news reporters mic way back in the 70's or 60's.

Someone uses it as a tom tom mic coz if the drummer hits it it wont break and suddenly they are the best sounding drum mic around.

Its a funny old world!

[Unburst]

Well people like what they know I guess, 421 on toms, '57 on guitars etc.

I used to hate '57 until I really learnt how to position one, the positioning is crucial.

I'd use a '57 over a 421 for guitat but you should check out the Sennheisser e609 too.

[MichaelK]

Having A/B'd them both I've found that I prefer the 57. I also like the Royer 121 a lot but I don't own one. My birthday is coming up, in case anyone is feeling extraordinarily generous.

[Bassomatic]

When a better guitar mic than a 57 comes around (that doesn't cost as much as a Royer) truly comes around, i'm all over it.

421? Okay for toms, bass cab. Not my go-to for either.

[jemaholic]

I use multiple mics and blend them in the mix.

57 / RE20

58 / AKG 414

Senni 421 / 57 (in back)

There are NO rules.:dude

[pete kanaras]

myself i don't like a 421 all that much for electric guitar, but i do quite like it for e-bass in front of a B-15 and pulled out about 6-8 inches. oh yeah.

you simply can't go wrong with a 57 for e-guit

the lesser known shure sm7 is very fine as well, and sounds good on almost anything. e-bass, kick, toms, saxes, percussion, vocals. really good e-guit mic.

the audix d-3 i like a lot on e-guit; i used one live (still do) for many years. and foh guys liked the d3 a lot too; they consistently said said they used much less board eq than with other mics and that it fit nicely into the mix right outa the gate. it's a flat response transformerless dynamic, low profile. about $120

but for me the royer 121 ribbon is IT. i've used one on about a dozen sessions so far. it simply sounds more like my guitar and amp than any other mic i've ever tried. you can jam it right up on a wide open amp and you won't blow out the ribbon. you can use the back side of the ribbon which is a bit darker sounding for some apps. and it excels in an ambient environment (tile bathroom, wood paneled room, etc). next session i'm gonna do 121 front-close mic'ed, 57 rear mic'ed-out of phase then combine 'em at the board to one channel. biiig. as far as i'm concerned the journey for e-guit mic'ing is over for me with the royer. i will save up and get my own.

[Orren]

Originally posted by MichaelK
Having A/B'd them both I've found that I prefer the 57. I also like the Royer 121 a lot but I don't own one. My birthday is coming up, in case anyone is feeling extraordinarily generous.

I do have a Royer R-121, and I agree, it's spectacular. I love it for mic'ing guitars.

Orren

[MichaelK]

Originally posted by splatt
i like the 421, a lot, if the gtr needs to be a bit bigger (esp. de-tuned instruments)
Now that's interesting...

[DigitalTube]

Originally posted by Scott Peterson
I have used 57's since I started playing out and recording.

I have used 421's in the studio when the engineer wanted to.

The 421 has more bass and less of a mid-hump; but it has a very definate mid-hump.

The 57 sounds grainy and small sometimes when you solo it out; but in 99.98% of the tracks I do it always fits *very* well. Better in context than alone for sure.

IMHO, I have three 57's that I own and use; they work well enough that I have never considered buying a 421.

Just my opinion.

Scott, just wondering if you always use the same 57 when you record, I also have 3 57's and they all sound different.. I used to think all 57's were exatly the same but for some reason all 3 sound different, I set them up on a stand adapter that never moves at exatly the same speaker and distant.
E.B.

[OneMileWish]

I really enjoy a 57/421 mix when recording clean electric guitars, but generally only use a 57 when recording distorted electric guitar. Those aren't the ONLY mics I use, but the ones I use most often.

Recently I've been doing some pre-production and ended up using some cheap 184 knockoff about 4 feet away from my cab on a fairly heavily distorted track and it sounded awesome. You never know what you'll get until you try it!

Dan.

[midnight1959LP]

I've had decent luck using a older 421 and an RE20.
I once A-B'd the 421 with a 57 and liked the 57 better.

[Greggy]

I have had no luck using a 421 on distorted guitar. I do like it on clean to mild overdrive, though.

[alschnier]

I was actually struggling w. my guitar the last few gigs. I normally use a 409 (on stage) & have for years (low profile, decent sound, etc.). the last 4 shows we played, I was using a 57 since we didn't have any 409s avail. I kept messing w. my tone, as it was driving me nuts (it should be noted I used IEMs, so I'm listening to the mic'd amp moreso than what's projecting immediately on stage). on a whim, I switched to a 421, since it was the most desirable thing we had ( & a great mic imho - just not my 1st or 2nd choice perhaps). the long winded point is - I loved it.

my tone went from that narrower mid spectrum that 57s do, to something a little wider. I don't really have that much low end in my sound, but the mids & highs I like just don't work that well w. that mic - BUT... it may for you.

[isfahani]

If you want your guitar tracks to sound like what everybody else expects your guitar tracks to sound like, use an SM57 ... like everybody else... (Sorry if I sound CYA...I'm still in recovery from the BaM atmosphere.)

--chiba

Don't apologise, I wish more people would have this attitude. Hey, the 57s work, but at the same time, there's like 20 gazillion other mics that might too.

[fuzzyguitars]

you can click in my signature link for some really rough clips comparing the sm57 and md 421

[powermatt99]

When I mix FOH, I like using 57s. I know exactly what I am going to get every time. When I play, I like my Heil PR30 for my set up. No fizz, no "presence boost," no distortion from high SPLs. If I were recording, I'd add a ribbon mic to it and get to tracking.

I've also used a Beta57 but I found it to be boomy the last time i used it. Maybe poor positioning on the slightly oversized Lonestar Special Combo.

[ben_allison]

IMO, the 421 picks up freq's that are useless on guitar cab, when in a mix. The 57 just sits better, with less fiddling.

For the price of one 421 you can get three 57's, and have three mics with greater utility.

An i5 or SM7b would be better than both.

[ben_allison]

If you want your guitar tracks to sound like what everybody else expects your guitar tracks to sound like, use an SM57 ... like everybody else.

I don't really buy this. There are so many variables (song, artist, performance, guitar, cables, amp, cab, speakers, room, outboard gear, mixing techniques).

There is no conceivable way the 57 could homogenize anything.

If you actually want to be different, do something other than use an electric guitar!

[Baloney]

The industry standard for guitar recording/live is the 57. I wouldnt use a 421 unless it was for another track to blend with the 57.

[mdog114]

I really like 421's, I've got three.

Whatever works for the track is what I use. I have ribbons, 57's, 421, 609's and many others, but I always defer to the track and what it calls for. More often than not, I use one of the three dynamics and blend it with a ribbon.

[the_Chris]

I don't know how you guys are setting an MD-421 on your rigs, but for me it's been great. I focus it dead center on the cone and pull it back a few inches to it's "sweet spot" where you get just a touch of room in there and the sound is big. The SM-57 is a bit too aggressive for me, the 421 kinda rolls of the highs just a touch so countering that with focusing it on the cone just works for my rig. I always mic up my Bogner Shiva halfstack though, so if you have speakers that aren't Vintage 30s or an amp that's voiced a lot brighter or something, you may not like the combination like I do. My method may not be conventional, but it sounds on recording how it sounds in the room so I can't find any fault with it. I guess your mic pre probably tilts your perception too, so FWIW, I use the pres in my api 3124+. There are so many variables though, so even setting your MD-421 on a different setting can radically change the sound. For me, one click away from the "M" seemed to give me the best representation of my sound (it gets the bass right where it should be, not boosted or cut).

[teleharmonium]

This thread is so ancient that some of the previous posters may have changed their minds by now.

The 421 is a perfectly good mic that can do nice guitar sounds, is the definitive tom mic, can be great for vocals, and is good to excellent on bass and bass drum as well. I would say it is as versatile as a 57 (and there aren't many mics I would say that about), and it makes a good choice for a second or third dynamic mic after the 57/58 in a small studio (as is the RE20 and SM7B).

It does sound quite different than a 57 on a guitar cab, so if you've got a track where the 57 isn't working, maybe it's a little too nasal, scooped, or you're hearing "too much microphone", reaching for a 421 is a sure fire way to at least hear a contrast while still staying in the realm of close miking with an immediate sounding, directional dynamic mic. You may well need to roll off some lows or low mids, but so what ?

[Denyle_Guitars]

Depends on the volume. I like the sm57 better on loud amps. The md421 sounds better at lower volumes. I prefer the Heil pr-30 to both.

[aram]

i agree on the heil pr30.

it's a great mic.

I really like mic'ing an amp with a 57 and the pr30.

The pr30 is very clear- almost sounds like a condenser.

And the 57 adds some grit to that. It's a great combo!

[meterman]

How well would the PR30 match up with a ribbon, in place of a 57?

[MichaelK]

For the price of one 421 you can get three 57's, and have three mics with greater utility.

Or splurge and get one of each.

An i5 or SM7b would be better than both.

Well, different from both. He really should get all four, plus four others, compare them for the rest of his life, and before he dies tell us who's right and who's wrong.

This thread is so ancient that some of the previous posters may have changed their minds by now.

I also wondered why a thread from Nov. 2004 suddenly rose from the grave.

[JoeP]

On a Ev 12L speaker, i love a 421. The 57 and Beta 57 both at higher spl's, tend to pick up alot of fizz, where the 421 stays true to the sound, and is very smooth.

There is a definate mic placement for a 421. You have to play with it, to get it to sound good. And, i've found if you mic a 421 like you do a 57, it sounds terrible.

But, by angling the 421 at the outside of the cone, you get this sweet spot that just sounds so smooth.

There are alot of good mic's for reasonable prices.

The trick, is to not just throw it up there, and go with it. Work with it, move it, alot, and listen to the differences.

And that goes with all mic's. . Just find where it sounds best to you.

Just my .02

[wahwah]

I prefer the Heil PR-30 to both the 421 and 57. Only yesterday we recorded 6 different guitar players as we demo'd the full range of Ulbrick amplifiers, and every player was blown away by the sound of the PR-30 up close. We had a Beyer condenser for some room ambience, but I know we will be leaning mainly on the PR-30 when we mix the tracks. It has some of the smooth midrange characteristics of a ribbon, with a frequency range closer to a condenser. I can't recall ever hearing a better guitar cab mic for close mic'ing.



Cheers............................... wahwah

[LSchefman]

Michael, as long as you asked, it's rumored that this thread was resurrected because it was a very nice, considerate thread in its past life, and so was rewarded with new life. ;)

Ok, to me, recording is an art, and the question "which mic is better for recording whatever instrument?" is like asking. "Which pencil should I use for this drawing I'm planning to make?"

That's bad enough to start with, but then, we go on and ask it of complete strangers whose work we are no doubt less than familiar with.

And we take this advice? What? Isn't there a better way of doing things?

If you spend 89 dollars on a 57, and you don't like it for a particular application, I mean big deal, you'll use it on something else, or put it on ebay and take a 20 dollar loss having learned something in the process. If you want to try a 421 or whatever else suits your fancy, what's to stop you? Same deal.

Making a commitment to recording is making a commitment to experimentation. You need enough colors and tools on hand to be able to make artistic choices in the moment, and according to the needs of the particular work. No single tool is going to be the best choice for every application, even recording a single instrument.

In all honesty, one needs several mics, just like an artist needs several paintbrushes and colors. And pencils.

And one also needs to spend time with the tools to evaluate their suitability for their personal vision. How can anyone pick a mic preamp, or a mic, or monitors, or a compressor, or plug ins, or software, without actually living with it a while? What I love, you may not relate to. What you love, I may not relate to.

I'll give you a personal example: I have a friend in Germany I work with on projects. I respect his talent, his ears, and his recordings a great deal. We use the same computers, the same main software, etc. But we don't necessarily share the same taste in synths. Each of us has preferences about recordings and about our own art.

So if you asked both of us, who have collaborated out of mutual respect, "which is the best synth?" and gave us choices, we might agree on a few, and disagree on a few.

This, to me, is as it should be. Whose advice is "better?" The answer is, both. You have to try things out and see what works.

And you have to, unfortunately in this business of recording, be prepared to take a few chances. That's part of the learning process and part of the fun!! But to ask a bunch of self appointed internet "experts? - including me - what their view is and make personal artistic decisions based on what someone says on the web? Please, try stuff out based on what interests you that people might recommend, but don't buy unless YOU like it.

[ricoh]

I use the 421 all the time for guitar recording. I can not remember the last time I used the 57. Maybe I should.......................:jo

[ReginaldBisquet]

Very grateful this thread was resurrected. I have an SM57, 58 and a modified 58 with the Tab-Funkenwerk transformer installed. All three are different and all three are dependable for recording a myriad of applications. I still shake my head when people say the 57 and the 58 are the same microphone once the ball wind screen is removed.

Nonetheless, I would like to chime in that the SMs are great mics for those on a budget but wanting something professional. Of course you’re not going to capture sounds as efficiently as one of the higher end microphones, so one has to work with the tools provided.

In Morocco, I remember my brother being asked to record his friend’s band. We had one microphone (the ubiquitous SM58) to record everything. My brother asked the band to play and keep playing as he slowly paced the room in search of the “sweet spot”. I was very young at the time, but I somehow understood what he was searching for.

In other words… (and this is from the Mercenary Audio Website):

[Microphones] come in all kinds of shapes and sizes... and unfortunately, people seem to think there are rules. Like vocals have to be recorded with "large diaphragm" condenser mics, or that "ribbons mics" are best used only on guitars... that "tube mics" are always "warmer" than "FET" mics.

In our studio, the "Methods and Applications Laboratory", we have broken every one of these rules [successfully!!] over the years. We have found that you can attain a wide variety of results from any tool. Your recordings will reflect your sense of aesthetic and your music. The character of the microphone you choose for any application should complement the sonic arrangement of the song, and texturally reinforce the emotional presentation of the music. In other words there are no rules, only "old wives tales". So please, as you wander through this, let's not get pigeon holed into the stereotypical roles of some of these tools. Ribbon mics often work excellently for vocals [just ask Frank Sinatra], and large diaphragm tube condensers are indeed clearer than some condenser mics with solid state amplifiers.

[MichaelK]

I still shake my head when people say the 57 and the 58 are the same microphone once the ball wind screen is removed.

They are. (http://shure.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/shure.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1118&p_created=988777595&p_sid=SKTZXvtj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX 3Jvd19jbnQ9MTc3LDE3NyZwX3Byb2RzPTIsMCZwX2NhdHM9MCZ wX3B2PTEuMiZwX2N2PSZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc 2VhcmNoX2ZubCZwX3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PXNtNTg *&p_li=&p_topview=1)

The difference is the acoustic environment of the 58's windscreen vs. the 57's baffle system, which in my opinion does make a significant difference between the two.

I once did an experiment with a 57 vs. a 58 with no windscreen. I place them on opposite sides of the same speaker cone, the capsules lined up exactly the same distance from the cone:

http://www.peradam.com/images/SM57vs58_exp-01.jpg

http://www.peradam.com/images/SM57vs58_exp-02.jpg

For the most part they sounded identical, but the 57 was very slightly smoother when SPLs spiked. I'm guessing it's because of the 57's baffles, though it could have been just because they came off the assembly line on 2 different days. In a mix there was no difference.

[thesedaze]

They are. (http://shure.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/shure.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1118&p_created=988777595&p_sid=SKTZXvtj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX 3Jvd19jbnQ9MTc3LDE3NyZwX3Byb2RzPTIsMCZwX2NhdHM9MCZ wX3B2PTEuMiZwX2N2PSZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc 2VhcmNoX2ZubCZwX3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PXNtNTg *&p_li=&p_topview=1)

The difference is the acoustic environment of the 58's windscreen vs. the 57's baffle system.

+1. Enclosures & windscreens do make a difference in the response. Check out Michael Joly's oktavamod site and you can see plenty of articles on such speak. But yes, the internals are the same on the mics.

[ReginaldBisquet]

+1. Enclosures & windscreens do make a difference in the response. Check out Michael Joly's oktavamod site and you can see plenty of articles on such speak. But yes, the internals are the same on the mics.

Not only do I stand corrected, I’m also surprised that I thought I heard a difference when told they were quite different microphones (even with the wind screen off). Ha ha. That’s why I love this site… lots of great info! I'm going to experiment with MichaelK's test to see what results I find.

[Ritualee]

I like to use the 57 and the 421 together. Seems like when I use just one, I hear the sound of that mic; when I use both, I hear the sound of my amp.

[root]

Friends,
I just got an older black MD421 and USA SM57 that I'm putting in front of a Princeton Reverb playing a Tele with volume on 6 1/2, Bass on 10, Treble on 7 w/out reverb, compression or EQ.
I'm happiest w/ both on axis at 2 inches from the grill w/ the 421 on the "M" setting aimed at the cone's center and the 57 on the cone's outer edge. This puts them at 2 inches on center.
When I play each track separately, they both sound similar but thinner than when played simultaneously (they are a tad bigger).
When I hard left and right them they are bigger & wider.
Do most people try to get a "different" sound from each mic?
I'm just a little wary of out of phase issues separating them anymore than they are. If I apply the 3 to 1 rule at 2 inches then they would be 6 inches apart and the mic at the edge of the speaker winds up being too dark.
Does anybody have any other placement recommendations or comments?
Or should I just be happy and take the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach?
root aka Bob G

[fuzzyguitars]

The 1 to 3 rule applies in terms of the distance away from the speaker

Not how far away frome the speaker cone

Ex
One mic 12 incher from the speaker. Then the other speaker should be 3ft. Or multiples of.


If feel that is to much of a pain. Use a tool such as little labs ibp and u can just set thes to where u think they sound good and then correct the phase issues with the ibp