SM57 alternative? Beyerdynamic M201!

A

Alfi27

New member
Never fully understood the SM57's "end all to be all" status when it comes to guitar recording... It emphasizes the right frequencies for guitar, yes, but it doesn't really give an accurate representation of what the rig actually sounds like (to my ears). If you have a rig that doesn't cut well a 57 can definitely help with that, but if you already have a bright guitar, bright amp and for example Vintage 30s, the result can be really brash and fatiguing. In my experience, such a setup requires quite a bit of post EQ to compensate for the high mid accentuation of both the mic and speaker, especially when layering guitars.

I do own four 57s though, so it can't be that bad, right? Don't get me wrong, it isn't. It's a classic for several reasons, but not all of them are sound related. It's cheap, virtually indestructable, and been around since about forever.

In the chase of something "better", I decided to try a Beyerdynamic M201, which arrived today. All cards on the table, to call it a better SM57 is a stretch - because it doesn't really have much in common with a 57 at all. It reminds me more of a condenser than a dynamic mic in some ways, no hyped frequencies anywhere to be found/heard. If you look at the frequency graph, it is nearly flat above 1k which the 57 definitely is not. Those graphs don't tell the whole story though, if you compare the M201 graph to the M160's graph they are almost identical, but they do sound quite different. An M201 and M160 together sound absolutely fantastic though, that is my "57 + 121 setup" at less than half the price. 57 + 160 also works well, of course.

Enough talk, listen to this. M201 first, SM57 second. Excuse the sloppy playing, I never record stuff like this with the intention of posting it anywhere, it's just quick and hasty so I can hear the actual sound asap. You'll probably think the 57 appears to be louder, but it isn't. This is part of the "cutting through ability" of the 57. For this particular style (GNR) I'll admit the 57 works quite well, it's very aggressive and pokey.



PS: Here is a short clip of the M201 and M160 together as well. Sounds like a pretty mix ready tone to me, just needs to be double tracked and I would be more or less ready to record an album :geek:
 
Last edited:
A 57 is all about how it sits in a mix. That extra brightness, and the lean low are often exactly what is required. In isolation like this, there's often more ear-pleasing choices - it's a hard battle to win.

Having said that the most famous 'isolated guitar' song of all time was recorded with a 57 (or two), so maybe my argument is moot. For those that live under a rock it was recorded in 1978 on a stripey guitar.

For years Kevin Shirley used a 201 and 57 combo, so that's an option too.

Nice clips btw, thanks for sharing (y)
 
You pretty much summed it up better than I did! I think my dislike for the 57 has built up over time, when trying to get a tone that isn't all about cutting the 57 hasn't really obliged. So my recordings have always been quite bright whether I liked it or not, and over time I've been leaning more and more towards "not".

Admittedly, my own original material is more on the punky side of things. I also prefer getting the tone as finished as possible from the get to, corrective EQ'ing never works as well IME. Blending the 201 and 57 would sound great indeed, after listening to the clip a few times I can't throne a "winner" so probably some sort of blend would be ideal.

If you know who Jerry Finn was (RIP), he stopped using dynamic mics for guitar entirely fairly early in his career. His go-to setup was a Microtech Gefell UMT70S and Royer R121, allegedly the UMT was his favorite though and he did some recordings with just that one. Love his tones on pretty much everything he did, warm but still cuts through. The intro riff in "Anthem" on the Enema of the State album is a great example of this.
 
Actually yes Jerry mixed one of my favourite Aussie albums of all time, The Living End's debut LP. So sad about him, not sure he even reached 40. This is a cracker song, peformance and mix:



Ok enjoy your cab miking journey, gotta to be one of the most fun, frustrating, rewarding, harrowing things in the world of music production!
 
I think at this point the 57 is too ingrained in our auditory memories for anything to come along and tip it off the top spot as the most ideal mic for distorted tones. That’s on top of the fact that they are cheap, lightweight, extremely durable, don’t require phantom, and can be easily manipulated to give drastically varied sounds through positioning. If you’ve got two of them there’s no end to the variations you can create.
Watch out that the 90s 57s sound less fizzy than the current production ones - both are great but I gravitate to my older ones most of the time.

Personally I find the 201 too rolled off in the top end, though backing off the cab can help. This is common with hypercardioid mics since they catch less brightness from the cap when close up. I prefer an old Shure Beta 57 or Sennheiser MD441 if that’s a sound I want though. Almost always if I record with one of those mics I’ll think I’ve achieved smooth perfection during the session only to add brightness to it during the mix anyway.
The Shure SM7b is getting some attention these days for distorted guitar but I think it’s also a bit too rolled off. The SM58 is killer on cabs though, a bit smoother and more angry in the mids. Worth trying!
 
The 201 is a fantastic mic, but definitely not one id use on its own. As Nolly said, too rolled off in the high end. If I use it with a 57, it’s always about -16 to -20db under the 57. I use it to add girth and weight in the low mids. Any higher than that in the mix ( in my opinion) for heavier metal tones makes the tone too dark and bloated. but it IS a fantastic sounding mic and one of my favorites to pair with a 57.

The sound of your guitar amp in the room is never going to come out on a record when you close mic something such as in the realm of heavier metal style music, it just isn’t. People need to accept that. Worrying about your amp in the room tone when recording is about the most useless thing on earth. Find a tone that sounds great under a mic: all of your favorite guitar tones ever are literally the sound of a microphone on a cab, not a room tone.

The 57/201 combo got decently popular about 15–16 years ago: this was a go to combination at audiohammer with Jason and mark, and many of their records during this time frame utilize this combo. Black dahlias nocturnal is a great example for instance. Although the guitar tone on that had some neat trickery as well with parallel EQing essentially.
 
Nolly said:
I think at this point the 57 is too ingrained in our auditory memories for anything to come along and tip it off the top spot as the most ideal mic for distorted tones. That’s on top of the fact that they are cheap, lightweight, extremely durable, don’t require phantom, and can be easily manipulated to give drastically varied sounds through positioning. If you’ve got two of them there’s no end to the variations you can create.
Watch out that the 90s 57s sound less fizzy than the current production ones - both are great but I gravitate to my older ones most of the time.

Personally I find the 201 too rolled off in the top end, though backing off the cab can help. This is common with hypercardioid mics since they catch less brightness from the cap when close up. I prefer an old Shure Beta 57 or Sennheiser MD441 if that’s a sound I want though. Almost always if I record with one of those mics I’ll think I’ve achieved smooth perfection during the session only to add brightness to it during the mix anyway.
The Shure SM7b is getting some attention these days for distorted guitar but I think it’s also a bit too rolled off. The SM58 is killer on cabs though, a bit smoother and more angry in the mids. Worth trying!
Click to expand...

That's super interesting, particularly about the 90s 57s! I have read up on stuff like changing the transformer on the 57 etc too, but the transformer costs as much as the friggin' mic and replacing it looks like a royal pain... Will definitely see if I can get hold of a used 90s 57 though!

Ever tried a Beyerdynamic M88, by any chance? Just ordered one of those as well, hope it will get here before easter. Should be brighter than the M201 at least, and from the clips I can find it does sound more natural than the 57 without going miles away from it.

VESmedic said:
The 201 is a fantastic mic, but definitely not one id use on its own. As Nolly said, too rolled off in the high end. If I use it with a 57, it’s always about -16 to -20db under the 57. I use it to add girth and weight in the low mids. Any higher than that in the mix ( in my opinion) for heavier metal tones makes the tone too dark and bloated. but it IS a fantastic sounding mic and one of my favorites to pair with a 57.

The sound of your guitar amp in the room is never going to come out on a record when you close mic something such as in the realm of heavier metal style music, it just isn’t. People need to accept that. Worrying about your amp in the room tone when recording is about the most useless thing on earth. Find a tone that sounds great under a mic: all of your favorite guitar tones ever are literally the sound of a microphone on a cab, not a room tone.

The 57/201 combo got decently popular about 15–16 years ago: this was a go to combination at audiohammer with Jason and mark, and many of their records during this time frame utilize this combo. Black dahlias nocturnal is a great example for instance. Although the guitar tone on that had some neat trickery as well with parallel EQing essentially.
Click to expand...

I agree, even with a room mic the "sound in the room" will never be fully translated to a recording (and nor would you want to). My wording was a bit cluttered when I said that a 57 doesn't give an accurate representation - what I really meant was that when you use a 57, it will imprint its own sound on whatever you're feeding it. Guess that could be said about any mic to a certain degree, but the 57 has a very strong and prominent sonic signature.
 
Sorry for posting twice in a row, but this would have gotten lost as an edit in the long previous post... Tried an interesting experiment just now, pairing a darker speaker (Alnico Cream) with a brighter mic (SM57), and then a brighter speaker (Blackback G12M) with a darker mic (M201). The result is very interesting, I like them both to be honest!

Listen here
 
Not exactly the hottest thread on Rig Talk, but I'll post an update for the few who cares. Finally got the Beyerdynamic M88, thought I was clever and ordered it exactly in time for easter, but the post completely stopped the day before the holidays. So the mic spent the entire easter at the local freight terminal...

Anyway, got it just now and managed to do a quick A/B with a 57. After hearing what it sounded like, I realised I should not have made this thread about the M201... It's a bit inaccurate to call the M201 a 57 alternative as it doesn't really sound all that similar. It's a great mic though, and I personally like it a lot more than a 57. But the M88 fits that description much better, it's definitely the closest I've heard to a mic retaining what I like about the 57 while getting rid of what I don't. It has that signature Beyerdynamic smoothness, warmth and 'naturalness' (is that a word?) but with more cut and clarity than the M201.

Also have an SE V7x on the way that I'm really excited about, much cheaper than the Beyer stuff and even cheaper than a 57, at least here in Norway. Based on what I've heard and seen (frequency curve) I think the V7x would be even closer to an obvious alternative to a 57 for most people, considering the whole picture with price and everything. That is, of course, if you don't love the 57... I realise I'm probably in the minority for not digging it, but I don't think we are that few and far between.
 
I was just going to suggest the M88, until I read your last post @Alfi27 .
I have a vintage one, and while it's probably my favourite mic on a guitar cab for the most true representation, I find it's quite different from a SM57. Much bigger lows, smoother highs. It just handles the mids very well, where some MD421's can become too scooped and sizzly on a V30 speaker.

I do own 2 SM57's, a 201, SM7B, Beta57, M88, multiple vintage MD421's, an e609 and many more, but like others said, the SM57 does a certain thing well and that's creating sonic room in a mix. Purely for solo tracks I prefer the 201 as well in most cases, but you'll have to work a bit more to make it work in a mix with that more neutral/tame high-end. I have a Drawmer DL251 (comp + enhancer) for that.
 
Don't really understand 57's appeal either. Too harsh sounding especially when recorded digitally and there are better options imo for the job nowdays.

Currently looking at e609 and e906 myself.
 
I've tried to replace the SM57. When it comes time for mixing I blind test myself with the different mics/positions and always end up choosing the 57 with a small upper-mid cut. The 201 definitely sounds like an interesting alternative, especially for my Marshall Vintage loaded cab. But, I have a feeling I'll end up with another mic I set up and never use the takes. Also, I don't know how anyone could call the 57 harsh and then want to try a e609/906. It emphasizes those harsh upper-mid frequencies even more than the 57.
 
HarryCooter said:
I've tried to replace the SM57. When it comes time for mixing I blind test myself with the different mics/positions and always end up choosing the 57 with a small upper-mid cut. The 201 definitely sounds like an interesting alternative, especially for my Marshall Vintage loaded cab. But, I have a feeling I'll end up with another mic I set up and never use the takes. Also, I don't know how anyone could call the 57 harsh and then want to try a e609/906. It emphasizes those harsh upper-mid frequencies even more than the 57.
Click to expand...
Because 57 is harsh and e609 or e609 aren't. They don't have a rolled of high end but still sound 1000x better and more like how you hear your amp in room than 57.
 
Kyrpajyra said:
Don't really understand 57's appeal either. Too harsh sounding especially when recorded digitally and there are better options imo for the job nowdays.

Currently looking at e609 and e906 myself.
Click to expand...
I personally find the e609 a lot harsher than the 57. I honestly don't think the 609 sounds like a 906 at all. If you want the 906 sound, you really can't cheap out on the 609. JMO.
 
Rex Rocker said:
I personally find the e609 a lot harsher than the 57. I honestly don't think the 609 sounds like a 906 at all. If you want the 906 sound, you really can't cheap out on the 609. JMO.
Click to expand...
This is my experience as well. I’ve tried a handful of mics including the e609 and have gone full circle back to a 57. The e609 was way too bright and harsh no matter where I placed it. Not tried a 906 tho. Even an SM58 worked pretty well.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like you're going down the current rabbit hole that I am. Mic experimentation is a lot of fun, but I'm finding it much like speakers. I.e. there are a lot of cool and interesting options out there, but when I shoot any speaker out back to back with a good Vintage 30, take a wild guess which one gets the nod.

Finding the same thing with the SM57. They just fill the mix in the right ways with minimal post EQ. I'm also no expert in mixing or production, exactly the opposite, I don't know shit. BUT, just using my ear in trying out some different mics last week, the sm57 always gets the nod in the blind tests.

I will say, blending seems to be the way to get some unique sounds while still retaining the SM57 signature. I've found with most IRs I'm using these days, I really enjoy mixing the sm57 with an M160 or R121. I'm also the type that likes trying stuff a little outside the box, and have found myself pleasantly surprised with combining the sm57 with a Sennheiser E835 vocal mic, one that I never hear anyone talking about when it comes to micing guitar cabs. Probably good reason, as I have yet to try to apply it to a mix, but at first blush, it seems interesting to my ears.

The M201 is one I was also looking at, so I'll have to listen to your clips here shortly. Good luck on the quest
 
Eh, if a 57 is too harsh for you just angle it slightly (10 degrees or so).
I’ve never tried the M88 on guitar cabs but I like it on kick drum. Typically mics that work on kick are pretty awful on guitar cabs but it sounds like this could be an exception.
 
Nolly said:
I’ve never tried the M88 on guitar cabs but I like it on kick drum. Typically mics that work on kick are pretty awful on guitar cabs but it sounds like this could be an exception.
Click to expand...
Just make sure you don't match it with an already darker amp/cab combo, or you could end up with a really woofy signal.

Btw, I don't know what version of e609 y'all are using that you claim is brighter/harsher than an SM57. Mine is about 20 years old and I bought it as almost the opposite to the SM57! It's fuller, a tad rounder, more mellow and more true to the guitar signal.
I just went to quickly record 2 takes (intro of Dio's "Last in Line", clean part + distorted part) with my old SM57 and e609 right in front of an '86 GT75 (non-vented, but with serifed font label, for those keeping track ;-) ) in a Marshall 1966B 2x12 with the Engl Savage 60 on top.
The SM57 definitely was the brighter and thinner sounding of the two, but in a way that would sit nicely in a mix though.

YMMV.

EDIT: I see if I google e609 now, it has that one silver side. Mine's black on both sides, FYI.
 
Last edited:
Rex Rocker said:
I personally find the e609 a lot harsher than the 57. I honestly don't think the 609 sounds like a 906 at all. If you want the 906 sound, you really can't cheap out on the 609. JMO.
Click to expand...
Joe-TX said:
This is my experience as well. I’ve tried a handful of mics including the e609 and have gone full circle back to a 57. The e609 was way too bright and harsh no matter where I placed it. Not tried a 906 tho. Even an SM58 worked pretty well.
Click to expand...
We probably mean a different thing with harshness as i find the 57 way more buzzy, spiky and harsh than either of e609 and e906.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top