Episode 39 - Fake SM57, and comparisons to real Shures

What exactly do you get if you spend £12 ($15) on a counterfeit Shure SM57 microphone?
Some things not too bad, and other things rather nasty sounding? Fake vs Real Shure SM57, Do windshields help close in to reduce pops and bangs and what do real SM58 and Beta58 sound like used the same way - everything compared to the legendary SM7B beloved of KZbin!
ALSO something odd I discovered at the end!

[@tonyreaux.logcabinstudio7745]

A good find! Thanks for the video… I see so many SM57’s for sale on line rather cheap but I’m scared to purchase them due to all the fakes! I don’t think a lot people buying them even know about the fakes or certainly how to check to see if it’s a fake? Now I wonder if all the fakes don’t have a transformer???

[@eastanglianradio]

There are some good ones. www.thomann.de/gb/the_tbone_mb75.htm is sourced from a factory that also applies fake shure branding, but these are so similar in appearance and 'feel'. I had one and was quite happy if it got used on a snare for live stuff - I peeled off the Thomann label - and somebody stole it! Frankly - buying any Chinese microphone is a gamble. Returning two months later does NOT guarantee the product will be the same. If you need two - buy two at one time. That's the only way to get consistency. So far - it's for me, 50/50 on good and useful vs rubbish.

[@KenTeel]

@@eastanglianradio Buy from a known retailer and you won't have to worry about fakes. Also, there are some very good 57 style mics out there, that are virtual copies if the Shure. Check out GLS audio ES57 It's a great little mic that is very similar to a Shure. Also for 58 style mics, check out the Behringer XM8500 and the BA 58a, These are all decent mics.

[@jimmichaels5058]

Just curious, does it sound the same with phantom power turned off? Without a transformer, phantom power may be interacting with the magnetic field, and thereby changing the performance of the mic. It certainly does at connect/disconnect to create the "POP". P.S. The Presidential rig uses two mikes for redundancy, even though since 1966 when they started using SM57's there has never been a mike failure!

[@pauljohnson4590]

No Phantom power has no impact at all - and Shures are all immune to this, and to be honest, transformer and transformer less mics have never caused any issues at all apart from the crack a live mic makes when connected when phantom is on. even with the dirt cheap tranformerless 57 copies, phantom doesn't have any tonal impact I have ever noticed, and this probably is just folk lore - never noticed it in a long time doing microphones of all kinds,

[@clcno.73llc62]

LC means Less Cable

[@SOLDbyYOU]

We are going to compare a potato… to and apple… but no let’s try these pair of boots in between just to totally ruin the side by side comparison… A STUDIO…..that can’t come up with three mic stands… so that THE REAL SM57 and the Fake one can be compared …. A……TO…..B….. not A… then… noise noise noise…..to C

[@KenTeel]

This is the most illogical comparison. Compare the fake SM57 with the real SM57. Don't obsure this comparison by bringing in other mics. This is a good video, but it's all over the place instead of just sticking with a direct comparison of the two mics. Wrong: the 57 does gets used on vocals regularly. By the way, the fake Sm57 has its own qualities, and it is a perfectly reasonable mic. It just has a different frequency response than the real one. The fake one is a perfectly useful mic. They should have just branded it with something other than Shure. Well of course there is no transformer in the fake. What did you expect? It's a $20 mic. However, there are plenty of good mics that are transformerless, too. No, having no transformer is not weird. Look at the Behringer versions of the 57 and 58, they don't have transformers. Even Shure made some dynamic mics without transformers in their history. More of the economy emulations of the 57 and 58 won't have transformers. It's common. Some people even take out the transformers in their 57s. Of course you can use the fake one on a "proper" recording. Here are a couple of examples. I used, what you'd call, a fake 57 on the vocals on both of these linked songs. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qoawmph9eJhlY5I and kzbin.info/www/bejne/n5qVe2Ofbad2r5Y On both of these, I use a GLS audio ES57 mic. I also used it on the coffee can drum that I used for a drum on the first one, and the mini cajon drum that I used on the second one.

[@pauljohnson4590]

Thanks for taking the time to comment, appreciated. The only thing I don;t actually see is vocals through 57s - Here in the UK, it's very rare and unusual. In the 70s? Yep - loads did it with that rather nice and effective windshield - the real one, not the grey scouring pad foam one every 57 came with in the box. Some bands or singers just liked the 57 on vocals, but I don't think I've seen it now for a very long time. The one thing I do know is that there are now so many different versions of the copies, it makes buying a 57 (or a 58) secondhand very risky! Some are so good as to be totally swappable, and others better used as hammers.

[@KenTeel]

@@pauljohnson4590 Paul, thanks for your tolerance of my rather blunt, opinionated words. LIke you say, now a days, there are so many choices, people use all kinds of different mics for recording. One of the major things that has changed since the 70s is the computer aided manufacturing, including robotic stuff. Manuracturing can be done on a very precise level, and can be done with less expense. This is combined with the science of making dynamic microphones, being pretty well known. They can literally pump out loads of them, and with, lots of times, being of good quality. Even people of modest income can afford a decent mic, now a days. I have a real 57, and my clone ES57, they sound just a tad different, but for all intents and purposes are swapable. I also have some very humble knock off of 58s. The one that I've been using for live giggin, recently, cost me $14 (Pyle PDMIC58.) And, its a decent mic. So, you could say that I'm kind of a connsouer of the cheap and cheerful. I get what you're saying about the better studios, in the UK, not using 57s on vocals. And, you're right about me dipping into history for examples of 57s being used on vocals. But, currently, with all of the home studios around, its the wild west on who is using what mic, for what purpose. The 57 is so ubiquitous, and so affordable, and reputed as the Swiss Army knife of mics, that I'll bet that they are still in use, for vocals, in project studios, world wide. Of course many of these studios would not be considered to be "professional" so, I get your point. Any, despite my cranky, blunt words, I really enjoyed your video, and will look forward to watching more of them. Thanks for getting back to me.

[@simon0yeung]

I have the same feeling, adding too many variables by adding another mic and then the unusual distances. It would be better to first get to the point of the thesis as a baseline. And then add-on more variances to that afterwards

[@KenTeel]

@@simon0yeung Yes, indeed. I like how you laid out the way that the video demonstration should be organized. It's a curious business about organization, because our minds' work in a somewhat random fashion. However, when we wish to comprehend something, intellectually (as opposed to just feeling something), we have to do some kind of focusing, with supporting data. And, the degree to which we organize our thoughts, oftentime determines the degree to which we understand a subject. If thoughts are not put into some kind of order, pertaining to a subject, then we end up with just kind of random bits of support and understanding of that subject. I think that mental organization can be taught. Studying math is one way to practice this. Emotions don't help solve an equation, but understanding a process does. Understanding a process is mental organization.

[@SOLDbyYOU]

Years ago I bought four SM 57s at the same time from a guy that wholesales electronics… $50 ( US) each…And then I started reading about all of the fakes… So I contacted Shure and I explained my concerns and asked if I could send to them my mics for “ Inspection “ and to get verification that they were in fact genuine. The rep said “ sure no problem… send them in and we will confirm that they are genuine or not”… So I mailed them in…. And then they mailed them back. I asked about the “ confirmation that they were genuine”…. They said that they didn’t do that kind of service… I still have the rcpts from mailing them. I…SENT THE MICS TO …SHURW…and they wouldn’t help me. Actually I do think that they are genuine… but the Shure rep wasn’t. Also … An original Fender Bassman… does not sound great or beautiful…. It sounds like a Baseman. A Vox AC…WHATEVER…or a Martial… or Janis Joplin….. NONE of these sound great…. What they DO sound like… is what the original sound of rock/ pop music… sounds like. To which we “ ASSIGN”… “ this is that beautiful sound”. We hear the sound of that urban WAY DISTORTED bass… going ppthpthpthp…ppthpthpthp…And we assign it a value of minus 100… I absolutely HATE IT. But it IS the sound that a generation identifies as or with..”THEIR” sound. An Sm57…. Sounds like an SM57 My Electrovoice PL76s…sound like the whole room when on boom stands four feet above my snare and two feet above my cymbals. But NONE of my recordings, through the Shures or EVs… interfaced through My Focusrite 18i20 and recorded through Reaper… NO recording…. sound like my drums… Not through my Bose Headphones….nor my Yamaha HS8s nor my AR3a, Smaller Advent or JBL 56….. we assign beauty…. BUT…many years ago I was in a high end Audio Retail Store in College Park Maryland..” Audio Associates”…. Very impressive, polished and polite reps…. Zero sales pressure. We were invited to go downstairs to “ audition” the Yamaha NS 1000 speakers… I happen to be looking away and looking down, when behind me, the salesperson started an A/B comparison between the Yamahas and A…LIVE TENOR SAXOPHONE …. and the live sax was rich and thick…and I could hear the reed slapping on the mouthpiece and the key click….. until I turned around to see that there was no sax! That audio setup…. The source ( probably a CD, MAYBE a perfectly maintained 33 record)… Sent through a great pre-amp and the a power amp… to the NS1000s…. All perfectly placed and tuned for the room…. SOUNDED REAL…( I was an ACTIVE rock, jazz and classical musician playing with everyone including sax players…) And before my logical brain sorted out what I was hearing ….. I took for granted the “REAL “…sax in that room. A Fender Bassman sounds great… but it’s limited audio quality is easy to reproduce on a superior Hi Fi system…. The same holds true with SM57s… etc… But that “LIVE “ SAX DEMO…. The sales people knew what they were doing. To this day… I remember that demo…. And I wish that I could know the combination of the recording signal path… and the playback signal path… The only thing I “ know”… is a “ live” sax went into a mic and came out a pair of Yamaha NS1000s….. with enough fidelity ( now we appreciate the term….FI….DEL…I…TY… so much fidelity… that my …current, professional ears… were absolutely fooled. Ps…. Commentary on “ the Boston Sound”… vs… a “ California Sound”… vs ?.?? And fatigue and airiness and depth and room…. All of those words are noise. My…ears…were 100%…tricked. Can an SM57 do this? Or… at what level and price point can a mic capture a Sax or Trumpet or Piano , voice or classical guitar… or Ride Cymbal… so that a good pair of ears can truly be fooled? I heard a holy grail…. But only for a moment My buddy bought those speakers…. 45 years later… he still has them. I have the AR3a s…… and hearing aides