All user reviews of 3/5 for the Shure SM57

Cardioid microphone electrodynamics.

OVERALL OPINION

For almost 20 years I use SM57. With its companion SM58 is probably the most common micro world. This hegemony is not misused because these two microphones are reliable and make a sound less correct in all circumstances. However, I do not know a single application where the SM57 is my best choice. For me, the SM57 is a spare.
The SM57 has something slimy in the upper midrange. On hand percussion (congas), I feel that the finger sticks to the skin. It does not return the presence with high fidelity, it is diluted in a little time, making it last longer, so you can hear better but it is less clear. On dense sounds in this register (saturated guitar), it becomes quite fast aggressive.
On a saxophone in concert to choose between SM57 and SM58, SM58, which I take is thinner in the midrange. A snare I rather to the M201 or M88 Beyerdynamic home.
Despite these criticisms, the SM57 is a basic tool that always gave me a usable result.

It's black, made of metal, and has lots of scratches now! Anyway, I've been playing for about 30 years on and off and am in and out of it. Funny how life gets in the way sometime. I'm into classic rock, metal, hard rock, country as far as playing goes, and just about anything else as far as listening goes. I'm not currently in a band, but have been throughout the years.

I bought this unit for about $80 online several years ago. I was looking for something to mic my guitar amp or drums with, and a microphone that I thought I might be able to use for vocals as well.

I like the solid build and the trusty frequency response curve. The unit is built like a brick shithouse and takes some serious abuse over the years and keeps on ticking. Mine is so scratched up I should have said it was silver instead of black. It works every time and is consistent. I'm sure I'll have it for years to come as well, as long as I don't drop it in a toilet or something and screw the electronics, I'm pretty sure it's indestructable.

About the only thing I don't like about this mic is the frequency response and the sensitivity. While I think it's a good dynamic mic for limited frequency range work, like a guitar amp or micing a kick drum for instance, I don't like how it sounds with vocals. It's sort of dull and lifeless and doesn't capture some of the nuances of the sound. Now many of you may be saying that I shouldn't be using a dynamic mic to record vocals anyway, but that's your opinion. Regardless, it's not something I would use the SM-57 for in the future based on my experience.

As I mentioned earlier it's built very solid and it seems pretty much indestructable. Very few things in my gig bags have lasted as long as this and taken as much abuse. Shure builds the best mics in the business in my opinion and my SM-58 rocks about the same.

Overall, I couldn't be happier. I didn't over pay for this, it's extremely high quality, and as long as you don't use the SM-57 for an application it wasn't designed for, you'll love it. I sure do.

This review was originally published on http://www.musicgearreview.com

- What kind of microphone? (Song, sound, mixed ..)
We can take what you want with unSM57 provided it does not require, it was my microphone singing in rehearsal, he'll very well on the snare, toms and guitar, why not Charley.

- What technology? (Electret, condenser ...)
It is a small diaphragm cardioid dynamic microphone, its output level is low.

OVERALL OPINION

- How long have you use it?
It's been three years since I use it

- What is so special that you like most and least?
When I need an extra microphone or when I should be taking in extreme conditions, I knows I can use the SM57, it keeps me from trashing a microphone more, more I think loves to be treated poorly, it's his side "SM"

He is hitting the snare drum or stamp his hump presence here makes it interesting, especially for the hardcore and I think the 57 sounds at once familiar and reassuring the musicians, still I think this microphone is repisse too much and is not true at all, its response to the transition is mean and frequency response (close enough) does not restore the integrity of the spectrum of the snare.
On a guitar amp I resent that few, upper spectrum is blurred and aggressive, but it can be if you save the Deftones 
To capture a guitar is enough repetition in the studio I say yes, but not necessarily alone. The low is a horror, ¾ of the time you find yourself a vibrating grid of plastic microphone that resonates on the lower frequencies of the instrument.
To capture the attack of the bats of the double pedal a brutal Death drummer is cool too.
The undeniable quality of this mic is its strength that I find suitable in the case of mobile use in repeated and so on.

- Have you tried many other models before buying it?
At the time no, I only tested the SM58 has a very similar sound identity

- How would you rate the quality / price?
Three years ago it cost 149 euros for a 57, clearly for the same price, there are much better, more versatile.
Many say this versatile microphone, I think it's not really the case, although it can be used on many sources (those to which we want to place well in fact) I must admit that it is only rarely ideal micro

- With experience, you do again this choice? ...
Today not, but if I did not I buy one of curiosity as to why everyone has this microphone. It will in any case a great value, and the result obtained with this microphone is mostly predictable and not surprising.

The SM57 is a legendary mic and has become the industry standard for almost EVERYTHING.

Dynamic mic, with cardioid polar pattern. An a supposed extended response.

The dynamic mic part itself is quite small not like a vocal mic like the SM58 but can still generally be used for vocals, drums, guitars, saxophones, congas, harmonica, etc etc the list goes on. So in that sense it's versatile, just like most mics, as they should be!

OVERALL OPINION

I can't really explain how they've become the industry standard mic. I'm not saying that they sound bad, there are better mics out there for the price of course. Maybe it's because they are relatively inexpensive and also sound decent? I can't say that they sound great or transparent as the Sm57 to my ears seems to be a bit sterile at some points and sometimes has a little bit too much highs and treble presence, making everything a little bit brighter. It also doesn't completely capture the low end of certain instruments properly i feel, but it definitely captures a spectrum of sound that seems to cut through the mix and sound alright.

I've used these mics on a numerous amount of recordings and live situations for guitar, bass, vocals, drums, brass and harmonics primarily.

I wouldn't say this is the best mic for whatever application but I do think this is a very generic sounding mic with enchanced presence and highs. But it has become so renowned now that everybody and their grandmother has one! It always seems to be that way, that the decent stuff that's well priced, becomes something of a classic.

Overall though, decent mic, decently priced.

I want to say mike and do nothing while at the same time ... It is neither the best nor the worst for any type of application in particular. So it seems it is solid. I have 3 that are between 1 and 4 years, and they walk all well.

OVERALL OPINION

In my opinion, this microphone not worth its price, nor the adulation that the whole world for him. It is a dynamic microphone means, not better than others that are 2x times cheaper and more effective. At first I had bought to replicate guitar amps, I found it quite ... until I test condenser mics (Oktava mk012 among others) and I realized my mistake. The record was far better than the SM57, which colors the sound in a way sometimes unpleasant. In short, this microphone is useless, except when you have nothing else handy. I totally recommend for anyone who wants to make home-studio, for the same price, there is a large diaphragm condenser equally versatile (see above) and 50x ultimate in reproduction quality. (Requires different technology)

Unfortunately this microphone has a reputation blind and unjustified, which makes it almost inevitable to have in its fleet microphone to be taken seriously. So if I can recommend this microphone, it is solely for that purpose "psychological", but surely not for its sound qualities quite commonplace and its price, in my view, unjustified.