Recording Fuzz Guitar

[Liquids]

I do not agree with Mr. Albini's (or Mr. Norman's, perhaps?) assessment of an SM57. I find it to be a useful microphone in certain applications, particularly the older version (they do seem to have changed a bit over the years).

Plenty of sound engineers don't think' much of the SM57/58 especailly for the studio--and given that it's design goes back to the 60's or so(?)--it can at least be improved, if not replaced, if it weren't for how much it's used and, as mr Albini points out, affection some people have with it.

It's not USELESS nor is it SHIT. It has an unmistakable sound, and like compression, our ears are so used to it, we've crafted around the sound of it for ages. And lots of people know how to tweak positioning with it to tame it's tendencies.

Mr Abini is opinionated, but in interviews I often hear him very aggressive about how HE feels, but not dogmatic about how others should do--unless they are, say, re-mixing his mix, say, like certain track on In Utero. I'm so used to/tied to the production choices made on some of those tracks that were re-produced/mixed, I can't even begin to enjoy Albini's mix now, because I've heard the others OVER AND OVER.

Which again brings us to, what we're familiar with. Read the book first? Might hate the movie....and so on.

SM57's can be used intentionally. But for heaven's sake, we're decades in, and some people think it's never been bettered---for guitar speakers? In guitar amps, at least no one gets in a tizzy when someone says Marshall and another says Vox, and another says Fenders (60's amps). Say something negative about the 57 and you're arrogant? C'mon.

[Liquids]

By the way, did we miss that he also sad "equivalently good on everything...unfortunately not a very high standard of 'good.'"

I don't agree that it's shit. But, in a sense, if you see the rest of his mic locker...by COMPARISON it's probably the most shitty mic he even owns. He's big on good mics.

He starts/precceds that by saying it's shit, I don't agree with him there, but I don't blame him for thinking that or having that opinion, especially in context of his approach and mic locker. BUT HE OWNS ONE. If you know what he does, if he has a customer who insists on a 57, he probably explains and pleads, but he probably will also give in, because he's there to record the band. And if the band is so insistent that the guitarist sound (live/room/pa) is an SM57...well, he's going to probably work with that despite his thinking the most accurate sound of the guitar amp (etc.) at hand is produced by another mic/technique combo.

[Liquids]

http://www.electricalaudio.com/item.php ... es/140.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

here's one many guitars ADORE, and his sense of humor is more evident: http://www.electricalaudio.com/item.php ... s/97-0.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Liquids]

So you're upfront that this is personal, as a precursor...


Yes, it is old technology, just like the U47 is old technology, vacuum tubes are old technology, magnetic guitar pickups are old technology, the Steinway grand piano is old technology, and Stradivarius violins are old technology. Fortunately, in music (and in the sound recording arts), technology is very non-linear. There are times when old technology is actually the most advanced technology for a given application-- even more advanced than newer technologies.

I feel that the SM57, for a certain type of electric guitar sound, is among the most advanced technology that exists. It's not the 'best' mic for electric guitar, or the only way to skin a cat... but there is a thing it does that's useful. Just like there's a thing a 1950s-style Fender single coil magnetic guitar pickup does. I think it's wise, in general, to get past a pre-occupation with correlating the passage of time with "advancement", particularly in the creative arts. There are cases in which things do become more advanced with the passage of time; there are also cases where the opposite occurs.[/quote]

Steinway got it's name for it's DEVELOPMENT of a relatively old instrument--the piano and it's return action. It continues to use advanced, updated techniques where applicable. There's videos about it.

A basic double blind test showed that NOT everyone who even thought they would prefer a Stradivarius over a well made violin which was made in the last 30 or so years, actually preferred playing and hearing the Stradivarius over the other: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/ ... t-a-violin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As aforementioned, sometimes one's affections (and what one is used to) overwhelm what might be determined as better.
The Sm57 has its place. As do wonder bread, champagne, and toilet paper. Again, I didn't/am not saying the SM57 useless shit one should never use. It's a color in the mic palate. But one many have used endlessly....

No, not all developments are improvements.
But when "they don't make 'em like they used ta" becomes a reoccurring theme, it seems to be more on the affections/personal level than objective.

The SM57 is NOT the most advanced technology that exists. Period.

Most advanced technology? On a tech level? That's insane to think Sennheiser (etc.) and the mic engineers over the years can't and HAVE NOT produced any mic more technologically advanced!
That's less rational than saying "the sound has never been bested," which I'd disagree with, but is at least on a "that's an opinion" level.

Hell, Shure has the Beta 57A...let alone countless other mics on the market...the site has something that tells the tale well in a Q/A or something on their site about even just the SM57 and 57A...

"Output level: Beta 57A is 4dB hotter than SM57 [technology]
"Handling noise: Beta 57A is quieter than SM57 [technology]
"Grill: Beta 57A has a hardened grill that is very difficult to dent [technology]
"Frequency response: Beta 57A has extended low end and high end compared to SM57 [technology]
"The Beta 57A sounds different than SM57 [sic]. You may like it better or you may not. We suggest a side by side comparision at your favorite Shure dealer.[sic]" [preference]

Technologically better? Even a just the 57A? Don't mix opinions with technology. You and many others may prefer the 57 for many reasons, and many others dislike it for many reasons.

One can't dispute it's wide use. Of course, Kraft singles and wonder bread are in wide use, too...but it's 'technology' is not among the most advanced dynamic mics in history at this point. C'mon.

[noisepunk]

He's delusional if he thinks that his profession is in jeopardy any less than producer or songwriter.

[Liquids]

When I say "most advanced technology" I mean "the piece of technology that makes it most expedient to do a given job to the highest standard."

One problem with this is, any user is then the judge of what is the highest standard, and the judge of what is most expedient. So "most advanced technology" varies as much as the user's taste.

Your standard (highest standard) is the sound you like the most, and the SM57 (piece of technology) is beyond expedient--it's ubiquitous.
So, that it makes it the most technologically advanced...per your definition of technologically advanced as stated, at least.

Would we agree that it's better to use a mic you love and know in-and out on a source than one you don't love or know in-and-out?

An RE-20 is superior, in the more dictionary definitely of the word "technically" as a dynamic mic, over an SM57 in many ways.. (wait for it)
BUT-- taste, preference, expediency, and one's standard are why you might use an SM57 instead on a guitar cab, and I'd use neither the SM57 or the RE20 as my first pick on a guitar cab (Mr. Albini would be likely to use that RE20 on a guitar cab, if I'm not mistaken).

What I really think it just comes down to for most is, people like the SM57. And that's of course valid! There's plenty of reason to like it! Good ones!

Though, just like "cut is better than boost" some turn their brain off and say "Guitar cab? SM57" -- close, straight on the dust cap, or some other single go-to mic location, and they may not go much further--thinking that's magic and fool-proof.

If you (or anyone) simply thinks the SM57 is objectively the best mic one can use on a guitar cab, snare, etc., than, say so, there's no sense in having a discussion, if that's the case.

And otherwise, the reasons to like it are as valid as the reasons to dislike it and use something else, if so desired. There ARE other valid options. Many. But again, one can only consider that to be possible if the SM57 isn't viewed as objectively the best mic one can use, and hence the most "technologically advanced" (per your definition).

[Liquids]

I agree. However, "most expedient" sound as lot like "tidiest solution," so to me you sound like you're saying both things sequentially.


Sounds like familiarity, tidiest, and expedient. All valid, to me. But again, which is it? And doesn't "as opposed to nerding out with this or that..." go with my saying:

Which means you'd have to get to know it in-and-out, and then it might become a mic you love, know in-and-out, and would use. It's like you agree, but you...

OF COURSE.


I said 'technically' as in TECH/SPEC. It's math, dynamic mic vs dynamic mic. Not use. Knowing both is kind of important.
TECH - the basis of how one knows/learns that an SM57 rolls off bass, how one knows that a condenser mic X can't take as high an SPL or how it will pick up sources in front/side/behind, how one knows that the RE20 will reproduce extended low high frequencies/color them in a very different way given the same source. Not to be replaced with experience, and much more trial/error/time wasted if one neglects the TECH info, but all that info can be obtained via application + critical listening. However, the tech info is available and useful to speed up the info. It's not stand alone, it's cold info, but it's REALLY useful when learning it preceeds/happens alongside experience.


I wasn't referring to you. I was saying, this is part of what's become ubiquitous with a 57 on a wide scale. When it's so widely regarded, it's plug and play, brainless. Not saying YOU do that. Clearly you stated you don't before and since.

Going back to my previous point--you read not even tech info on the SM57(?), but never used one because of someone else's opinion. That left out both tech info and critical listening. I understand and agree, that's ridiculous. I wouldn't take ANYONE's opinion as gospel--but I might respect it and use it as a fast-forward with my own experience. I wouldn't forbid trying something--especially something some others swear by--just because even a greatest hero derides it. Sorry to hear you made that mistake with the SM57 (never use it) for so long.


Sorry but--I think you'll now agree--of course it was, especially THERE.

If someone had that rig, and wanted that sound, and I was micing it, I would reach for either a SM57 or maybe something very similar with slightly less-extreme (to me) positioning criticality--something that changed less radically with mm of change in angle to, distance from, and placement on the speaker. That just makes sense.

I know that mic--and I imagine not nearly as well as you do, nor many others. I just don't like it for many sources. But as you said--what source, what cab?--still applies.

I'll put it this way--given your definition of "ideal technology"--it takes longer for ME to find a sweet spot with that mic on a guitar cab, than any other, in most cases. I constantly fight it. It works great for classic les paul and marshall, absolutely. In that case, it isn't my sound, but if it was the one mic I had for that job, I'd just deal with it and position it close and slightly off axis and just deal with it, and it'd probably work at least fine, if not very well. I'd be really quick to cut some high mids to some degree, most likely, mix depending, for one.

But that means, for me, in situations where it's going to yield "exactly the result I'm looking for more quickly than anything else," I'd use it. Why wouldn't I?
But that's not every situation, either, and there's other mics that, for me, would yield "exactly the result I'm looking for more quickly than anything else," and I'd be wasting my time with a SM57, fighting it, which isn't expedient, given that there is more than one mic that works on guitar cabs (and multi-micing).

[Jaguar018]

I'll just pre-format it for the response.

[tatotateman]

Following along as best I can, this is what I've gotten out of this discussion:

The Sm57 has its place. As do wonder bread, champagne, and toilet paper. Again, I didn't/am not saying the SM57 useless shit one should never use. It's a color in the mic palate. But one many have used endlessly....

The SM57 likewise represents, to me, a mature piece of technology that has carved out an enduring place in the sound recording arts, and for a good reason. I don't happen to think it's nostalgia, inertia, or anything else other than suitability for a certain purpose that keeps it there. It has a trick it does, and that trick (for CERTAIN applications) remains exactly what those applications indicate.

Basically agreement?

[Liquids]

From earlier:

On some important, basic levels, agreement--without a doubt! In some areas, saying the same/similar things, but different ways or emphasis. I tried hinting at that before as shown above. So it is. It's just a mic though.



I realize I actually never mentioned--from a few tests and comparisons I personally reach for the e906 as my go-to for guitar cabs. For what I'm after, the "middle" switch position on that mic works if one likes whats at the speaker.
In the mic's 'bright' position, it's got a lot of similarities to the 57 tone...though I find it faster/easier/more experience to work with, with notably less dramatic effect to a mm shit here/there with axis and distance from the center of the dustcap. It's also primarily designed as a guitar speaker mic.

I also do find a decent SDC condenser, set, say, 1-2 feet from the speaker to be a rather rich tone on a guitar cab. Some EQ (boost lows to taste, cut highs if too much detail) can make it that much more pleasant, and a very usable sound in a mix. Of course, using a good LDC with wise use of distance (avoiding clipping) can be a great rich go-to sound too. Some find using LDCs on guitar cans overkill, and I think that's not unreasonable---not everything can nor should be "huge" in the mix.

[Liquids]

On some important, basic levels, agreement--without a doubt! In some areas, saying the same/similar things, but different ways or emphasis. I tried hinting at that before as shown above. So it is. It's just a mic though.



I realize I actually never mentioned--from a few tests and comparisons I personally reach for the e906 as my go-to for guitar cabs. For what I'm after, the "middle" switch position on that mic works if one likes whats at the speaker.
In the mic's 'bright' position, it's got a lot of similarities to the 57 tone...though I find it faster/easier/more expedient to work with, with notably less dramatic effect with a mm shift here/there with axis and distance from the center of the dustcap. It's also primarily designed as a guitar speaker mic.

I also do find a decent SDC condenser, set, say, 1-2 feet from the speaker to be a rather rich tone on a guitar cab. Some EQ (boost lows to taste, cut highs if too much detail) can make it that much more pleasant, and a very usable sound in a mix. Of course, using a good LDC with wise use of distance (avoiding clipping) can be a great rich go-to sound too. Some find using LDCs on guitar cabs overkill in many situations, and I think that's not unreasonable---not everything can nor should be "huge" in the mix. If you're after a good jazz guitar sound, might be a very different story as it's a different mix, and those guitar's clean lows might be really important.

[Sonicxyouth]

The poor OP just wanted to know how to record a good fuzz track...

[RuffiansFC]

so......yes or no on the 57?

[funnylittle]

i don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but sometimes it can help to split the signal (after the fuzz) and record the direct signal too. along with two different amp sounds (a trebly one, a bassy one) the direct fuzz mayhem can clear up the fuzz or at least bring it to the front, if that's needed. a lot of engineers use a direct track. always depends on what you want, but it can be a powerful and easy to achive alternative.

[øøøøøøø]

...OR you could just get the sound that works within the context of the production from the jump, and roll with that. That always seems to be easier to me than making a reconstituted chicken nugget of a guitar tone at some later point in the process.