Vintage Shure 55c, trouble getting good sound quality
air...@gmail.com
I am looking for mic help!
I just bought a vintage Shure 55c high impedance microphone, a new
vintage style 7' cable (3-pin amphenol to 1/4"), and a 1/4" to XLR
transformer from radio shack. I have connected it to several
different sound boards but struggle to get good sound quality.
Everything sounds muffled, like the bass is missing perhaps.
I purchased it on ebay, and the seller said the sound quality was
"amazing", though he said he tested it on a ham rig, and I don't know
much about that. I've been doing tons of research about impedance
matching, and I made sure to buy the right cables and all that, and
yet I can't get this thing to work the way I had hoped.
I've posted a sample that I recorded at a radio station I work at.
Please take a listen and let me know what you think.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8948105960483515961
Is it broken? Is it just old? Could I be wiring it wrong?
Thanks for all your help,
Adam
Peter Larsen
> Hello,
> I am looking for mic help!
> I just bought a vintage Shure 55c high impedance microphone, a new
> vintage style 7' cable (3-pin amphenol to 1/4"), and a 1/4" to XLR
> transformer from radio shack. I have connected it to several
> different sound boards but struggle to get good sound quality.
> Everything sounds muffled, like the bass is missing perhaps.
High impedance .... high impedance ... high impedance ..... there could be a
message here.
> Is it broken? Is it just old? Could I be wiring it wrong?
You need a suitable transformer or to try it in an instrument input.
Sennheiser made some cable trannies for this once upon a time .... there are
probably inline transformers that fit into an XLR barrel on the market
nowadays.
> Adam
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Peter Larsen
> air...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>
>> I am looking for mic help!
>> I just bought a vintage Shure 55c high impedance microphone, a new
>> vintage style 7' cable (3-pin amphenol to 1/4"), and a 1/4" to XLR
>> transformer from radio shack. I have connected it to several
>> different sound boards but struggle to get good sound quality.
>> Everything sounds muffled, like the bass is missing perhaps.
Muffled is usually used for missing treble, sharp for missing bass.
> High impedance .... high impedance ... high impedance ..... there
> could be a message here.
>
>> Is it broken? Is it just old? Could I be wiring it wrong?
>
> You need a suitable transformer or to try it in an instrument input.
> Sennheiser made some cable trannies for this once upon a time ....
> there are probably inline transformers that fit into an XLR barrel on
> the market nowadays.
Note the wording "suitable transformer".
Mike Rivers
> I just bought a vintage Shure 55c high impedance microphone, a new
> vintage style 7' cable (3-pin amphenol to 1/4"), and a 1/4" to XLR
> transformer from radio shack. I have connected it to several
> different sound boards but struggle to get good sound quality.
> Everything sounds muffled, like the bass is missing perhaps.
"Muffled" usually means lacking treble rather than lacking bass. Given
the setup, and the fact that the Shure 55C is supposed to have a
"vintage" and band-limited sound, it's simply not supposed to sound
very good.
Is this a real 55C from the 1940s, or the modern version? If it's an
old one, goodness knows what it's been through. Just look at the
frequency response of it when it was new and you'll see that it starts
to go to pot beyond the speech range (200 Hz to 3.5 kHz roughly).
http://www.shure.com/stellent/groups/public/@gms_gmi_web_ug/documents/web_resource/us_pro_55a_ug.pdf
The fact that you have the high impedance version and you're going
through a crummy transformer only makes things worse. Enjoy the
vintage sound or get yourself a more modern microphone. I was given a
couple of those mics (though the low impedance version) and after
deciding that I'd never use them for anything but a prop, I put them
on the "future projects" pile. I'm planning to mount them on a nice
looking piece of wood and making them into a hat rack.
Scott Dorsey
>I am looking for mic help!
>I just bought a vintage Shure 55c high impedance microphone, a new
>vintage style 7' cable (3-pin amphenol to 1/4"), and a 1/4" to XLR
>transformer from radio shack. I have connected it to several
>different sound boards but struggle to get good sound quality.
>Everything sounds muffled, like the bass is missing perhaps.
Yes, those mikes are that way.
>I purchased it on ebay, and the seller said the sound quality was
>"amazing", though he said he tested it on a ham rig, and I don't know
>much about that. I've been doing tons of research about impedance
>matching, and I made sure to buy the right cables and all that, and
>yet I can't get this thing to work the way I had hoped.
The old 55 has no top end, no bottom end, and the pattern is just
godawful. It is far worse than the SM-57 as a PA mike because the
gain before feedback is just awful.
>I've posted a sample that I recorded at a radio station I work at.
>Please take a listen and let me know what you think.
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8948105960483515961
>
>Is it broken? Is it just old? Could I be wiring it wrong?
No, they sounded awful when they were new too. You might try an active
DI box to reduce the load on the thing, but don't expect it to sound
as good as an SM-57.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
air...@gmail.com
Yeah, that's what I was afraid of. It's just a crummy old mic. It's
beautiful though so I took it today to music repair man to see about
updating the internal mic parts. I know it will no longer be a
vintage mic, but a decent mic in that chrome frame is all i really
want anyway, and I don't really intend to resell it.
Thank you all for your help!
Adam
air...@gmail.com
> On Dec 31, 12:22 am, air...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I just bought a vintage Shure 55c high impedance microphone, a new
> > vintage style 7' cable (3-pin amphenol to 1/4"), and a 1/4" to XLR
> > transformer from radio shack. I have connected it to several
> > different sound boards but struggle to get good sound quality.
> > Everything sounds muffled, like the bass is missing perhaps.
>
> "Muffled" usually means lacking treble rather than lacking bass. Given
> the setup, and the fact that the Shure 55C is supposed to have a
> "vintage" and band-limited sound, it's simply not supposed to sound
> very good.
>
> Is this a real 55C from the 1940s, or the modern version? If it's an
> old one, goodness knows what it's been through. Just look at the
> frequency response of it when it was new and you'll see that it starts
> to go to pot beyond the speech range (200 Hz to 3.5 kHz roughly).
>
>
> The fact that you have the high impedance version and you're going
> through a crummy transformer only makes things worse. Enjoy the
> vintage sound or get yourself a more modern microphone. I was given a
> couple of those mics (though the low impedance version) and after
> deciding that I'd never use them for anything but a prop, I put them
> on the "future projects" pile. I'm planning to mount them on a nice
> looking piece of wood and making them into a hat rack.
It's a real 55c, and the element is just probably too old. Basically,
I was hoping I could get a decent sounding mic that might provide
something usable once or twice for a radio broadcast. I don't have a
high impedance crystal amplifier, though it did work a little better
on a guitar amp.
Thanks for the help,
Adam
Scott Dorsey
>Yeah, that's what I was afraid of. It's just a crummy old mic. It's
>beautiful though so I took it today to music repair man to see about
>updating the internal mic parts. I know it will no longer be a
>vintage mic, but a decent mic in that chrome frame is all i really
>want anyway, and I don't really intend to resell it.
It won't be.
You can put an SM-57 capsule behind that grille, and what you will get
won't have anything to do with the SM-57 pattern. The grille is going
to screw up any element you put behind it.
There is a reason modern microphones don't look like that, and it's not
just style.
air...@gmail.com
What if used a bullet microphone, like the Shure 520DX? It also has a
grill. I'm looking for average (but modern) sound, not top of the
line. Do you think it's possible?
Mike Rivers
> What if used a bullet microphone, like the Shure 520DX? It also has a
> grill.
It's good for playing blues harmonica into a guitar amplifier. Is this
for television? If not, who cares what the mic looks like?
Have you looked at the Heil Fin or Heritage models? They're cool
looking and at least they're modern designs so they won't make you
sound so much like a taxi cab dispatcher.
http://www.heilsound.com/pro/products/fin/index.htm
http://www.heilsound.com/pro/products/heritage/index.htm
david correia
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Many years ago I got one at an auction. When I plugged it in, it sounded
like crap, so I sent it out to Shure for repair. When it came back, it
still sounded like crap. So I sent it back to Shure, telling them it
didn't sound right. And when it came back again, it still sounded like
crap. That's when my thick head finally got the message.
Years later a guy who kept renting it from me for photo and video shoots
asked if he could buy it. Lucky me.
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
Scott Dorsey
>What if used a bullet microphone, like the Shure 520DX? It also has a
>grill. I'm looking for average (but modern) sound, not top of the
>line. Do you think it's possible?
The 520DX sounds like a telephone. It's mostly used today for a distorted
sound for blues harmonica.
You'll notice there are no side vents on the case....
air...@gmail.com
Yeah, those are nice looking. The problem is I'm a pain in the ass
and only specifically like the original fat boy Shure 55 model. If
they made a Series II version of that (like they did with the 55sh), I
would buy it!
Scott Dorsey
>
>Yeah, those are nice looking. The problem is I'm a pain in the ass
>and only specifically like the original fat boy Shure 55 model. If
>they made a Series II version of that (like they did with the 55sh), I
>would buy it!
The 55SH reissue is pretty crappy, again because of the grille problems.
It's got an SM-57 capsule in it, which is a pretty good capsule, but the
grille screws the pattern up so the gain before feedback is much worse
than an SM-57.
Could you live with an omni? You could block up a 55 body and install
a small omni capsule. You'd still have all the awful edge effects of
the grille, but you wouldn't have to worry about rear venting which
would take a lot of the nastiness off. Unusable for PA work, but fine
for TV.
air...@gmail.com
> a small omni capsule. You'd still have all the awful edge effects of
> the grille, but you wouldn't have to worry about rear venting which
> would take a lot of the nastiness off. Unusable for PA work, but fine
> for TV.
Yeah, I think that's what I might do, though I'm nervous about costs,
but I guess I've already sunk a lot into this, a little more won't
hurt. I thought the bullet is omnidirectional, but you said its junk,
right?
Honestly, I've used the 55 SH before, and I love the way it sounds.
It's not pro quality, but good enough for me, if that helps explain
what I'm looking for.
Again, thank you all for your help. It's greatly appreciated, and I
hope I'm not annoying or distracting from more productive discussions
in this group. I just really needed some quality advice, because I'm
pretty new to this.
Thanks,
Adam
Peter Larsen
[quoting Scott Dorsey]
>> Could you live with an omni? ...unusable for PA work, but fine
>> for TV.
> Yeah, I think that's what I might do, though I'm nervous about costs,
> but I guess I've already sunk a lot into this, a little more won't
> hurt. I thought the bullet is omnidirectional, but you said its junk,
> right?
Digikey has a Panasonic omni electret that will be affordable. The
practicalities of the transplant may of course cost you some if you can't do
it yourself.
Scott Dorsey
<air...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Could you live with an omni? =A0You could block up a 55 body and install
>> a small omni capsule. =A0You'd still have all the awful edge effects of
>> the grille, but you wouldn't have to worry about rear venting which
>> for TV.
>
>Yeah, I think that's what I might do, though I'm nervous about costs,
>but I guess I've already sunk a lot into this, a little more won't
>hurt.
I'm still totally at a loss for what you want, though.
> I thought the bullet is omnidirectional, but you said its junk,
>right?
No, it's a great microphone for distorted harmonica. If what you want
is a microphone for blues harp, it's the way to go.
>Honestly, I've used the 55 SH before, and I love the way it sounds.
>It's not pro quality, but good enough for me, if that helps explain
>what I'm looking for.
For WHAT, though? This is for a TV broadcast application? For PA?
For what? Why is it so important that the mike look a particular way?
air...@gmail.com
> For what? Why is it so important that the mike look a particular way?
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Hehe. I'll just come out with it. I am a college sportscaster, and I
would like to use this microphone once or twice for a basketball radio
broadcast at my university station in Washington DC. We have a comrex
hooked up to a phone line (we're not even ISDN), and our headset
microphones are average (though I don't know the model offhand,
sorry). Basically, I was hoping the vintage mic I bought would
compete with the headsets at our station, or even the $20 lapel mic I
bought at radio shack, so you know I'm not looking for pro quality
stuff.
I only wanted the vintage fatboy because I love the way it looks.
It's not for publicity, it's not for TV, it's simply for the sheer joy
of it. I know I'm being a pain in the ass, but this is something that
would make me very happy, and if it works, I will cherish it. I'm
normally very cheap and hate spending money, but in this case, I'm
willing to go for it.
Adam
air...@gmail.com
Thank you Peter. I think I will probably be going with something just
like that, but I will have to pay someone for the installation, I
think. I'm willing to spend money to get it right. The mic is now
with an instrument repair man who was very kind and said he would test
the mic for me on his equipment for free, and then said he would look
into finding something to replace the capsule if the original is no
good. I'll see what he says.
Thanks again,
Adam
Mike Rivers
> I'll just come out with it. I am a college sportscaster, and I
> would like to use this microphone once or twice for a basketball radio
> broadcast at my university station
Finally! They all seem to come up with the missing details eventually.
As long as you're not also announcing the game over the PA system, you
don't have to worry about feedback, but you probably don't want to use
an omni either unless you have an enclosed booth, since it's probably
pretty noisy on the court. A headset mic is usually best for that kind
of application, and that's why your station uses them.
> I only wanted the vintage fatboy because I love the way it looks.
I can understand the inspiration. Dave Letterman doesn't really need a
vintage RCA mic, but it just looks right to him. I understand that he
occasionally taps it with a pencil and it sounds live, but I wouldn't
be surprised if his primary audio actually comes from a condenser clip-
on mic that the engineers are more comfortable with.
So why don't you use a headset or clip-on mic connected to the
telephone interface, set up the 55, and pretend that's what you're
broadcasting through?
Peter Larsen
[finally, after a week on the newsgroup's racks the questionee gives in and
admits what he intended to use the mic for, and it is NOT what he initially
said it was about]
> So why don't you use a headset or clip-on mic connected to the
> telephone interface, set up the 55, and pretend that's what you're
> broadcasting through?
That's pure wisdom! - an omni ain't gonna cut it for "in audience" sports
casting if the crowd gets enthusiastic.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Scott Dorsey
>
>Hehe. I'll just come out with it. I am a college sportscaster, and I
>would like to use this microphone once or twice for a basketball radio
>broadcast at my university station in Washington DC. We have a comrex
>hooked up to a phone line (we're not even ISDN), and our headset
>microphones are average (though I don't know the model offhand,
>sorry). Basically, I was hoping the vintage mic I bought would
>compete with the headsets at our station, or even the $20 lapel mic I
>bought at radio shack, so you know I'm not looking for pro quality
>stuff.
The thing is, that's not a microphone anyone would ever have used for
that application when it was new. You'd have been a lot more likely
to see an EV 630 or an RCA ice cream cone on the desk in that kind
of situation back in the fifties.
Have you ever used a 635A on the desk? Give it a try. If you stick
an omni element inside the case, the best you'll ever do will be
something like that. If that works out well enough for you, try it.
I think you'll get way too much crowd noise.
But for a sportscast, why the hell do you care WHAT the microphone
looks like? Nobody can see it on the radio. That's the thing about
radio.
>I only wanted the vintage fatboy because I love the way it looks.
>It's not for publicity, it's not for TV, it's simply for the sheer joy
>of it. I know I'm being a pain in the ass, but this is something that
>would make me very happy, and if it works, I will cherish it. I'm
>normally very cheap and hate spending money, but in this case, I'm
>willing to go for it.
There are plenty of great looking microphones, though, that actually
sound good. Hell, you can get an EV 664 for cheap, and it'll beat
most modern dynamics hands down for the application. There's no reason
to waste your money on cheesy crap that is only worth money because
Japanese collectors want to put it behind glass.
Scott Dorsey
>
>I can understand the inspiration. Dave Letterman doesn't really need a
>vintage RCA mic, but it just looks right to him. I understand that he
>occasionally taps it with a pencil and it sounds live, but I wouldn't
>be surprised if his primary audio actually comes from a condenser clip-
>on mic that the engineers are more comfortable with.
It does, as well as the boom mike. Likewise that SM-33 that sat on
Johnny Carson's desk for years was normally silent, and when they brought
it up occasionally to deal with failed lav mikes the difference in
sound quality was considerable.
>So why don't you use a headset or clip-on mic connected to the
>telephone interface, set up the 55, and pretend that's what you're
>broadcasting through?
If it's good enough for Johnny Carson....
air...@gmail.com
I'm sorry to be confusing! I wasn't trying to be. I did want to use
it mostly for simple voice recording in a studio, to record PSAs and
promos. But I would love once to take it to a basketball game, and I
can take it toOn Jan 1, 4:38 pm, "Peter Larsen" <plar...@mail.tele.dk>
wrote:
I'm sorry to be confusing! I wasn't trying to be. I did want to use
the mic mostly for simple voice recording in a studio, to record PSAs
and promos. But I would love once to take it to a basketball game,
and I can take it to a women's game where crowd noise won't be as big
of a problem.
I really love the way the 55 SH sounds (and it's unidirectional) and
if I could get something like that inside my vintage fatboy chrome
shell, that would be perfect for me. I don't want it for show though,
I want it for myself, which is why I don't want to use it as a prop
(with a lav as the active mic). If I could get one that is
functional, it would become my prized possession.
If it can't be done, it can't be done, but I figured I'd ask.
Adam
nebulax
<air...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:734a5804-2592-4358...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
The modern version of that mic, the 55SH Series II, has an element similar
to a SM-48 inside it, so the sound would probably be more 'modern'. Plus,
it's only $159 at Zzoundz - http://www.zzounds.com/item--SHU55SH
-Neb
OFFICIAL RAM BLUEBOOK VALUATION
<air...@gmail.com> wrote in message
734a5804-2592-4358...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
> I purchased it on ebay, and the seller said the sound quality was
> "amazing", though he said he tested it on a ham rig, and I don't know
> much about that. I've been doing tons of research about impedance
> matching, and I made sure to buy the right cables and all that, and
> yet I can't get this thing to work the way I had hoped.
You've been scammed, probably by Brian McCarty.
Too bad.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Scott Dorsey
>
>I'm sorry to be confusing! I wasn't trying to be. I did want to use
>it mostly for simple voice recording in a studio, to record PSAs and
>promos. But I would love once to take it to a basketball game, and I
>can take it to
1. Find out what you really want a microphone for.
2. Buy a microphone that is good for that application.
3. Stop worrying about what it looks like, unless looks are critical for
that application (as they are for TV stuff, tribute bands, etc).
jakdedert
> <air...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm sorry to be confusing! I wasn't trying to be. I did want to use
>> it mostly for simple voice recording in a studio, to record PSAs and
>> promos. But I would love once to take it to a basketball game, and I
>> can take it to
>
> 1. Find out what you really want a microphone for.
>
> 2. Buy a microphone that is good for that application.
>
> 3. Stop worrying about what it looks like, unless looks are critical for
> that application (as they are for TV stuff, tribute bands, etc).
> --scott
>
>
experts--whose time you are requesting--what you need it for.
On the subject of #3, didn't they modify vintage mics for the 'Buddy
Holley Story', including some 55's? Seems I read, back when the movie
came out, a story about how they shot many of the musical performances live.
Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Buddy_Holly_Story> mentions
the live concert scenes, but nothing about the technology involved.
They do go into depth about numerous historical innacuracies in the
movie....
jak
Mike Rivers
> On the subject of #3, didn't they modify vintage mics for the 'Buddy
> Holley Story', including some 55's? Seems I read, back when the movie
> came out, a story about how they shot many of the musical performances live.
That doesn't mean that they actually used the mics that you saw in the
movie. There was probably an overhead boom mic that captured the sound
of the band, or maybe the singer had a hidden miniature mic to capture
his vocal. Good movie sound engineers are really good at placing and
hiding those things, and making a usable sound track from wild sound.
Or maybe they captured the band minus the vocal live and then
overdubbed that.
Movies are better than ever. ;)
Don Pearce
Apart from the Foleys, which go on getting more absurd by the day ;-(
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
air...@gmail.com
> > <air...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I'm sorry to be confusing! I wasn't trying to be. I did want to use
> >> it mostly for simple voice recording in a studio, to record PSAs and
> >> promos. But I would love once to take it to a basketball game, and I
> >> can take it to
>
> > 1. Find out what you really want a microphone for.
>
> > 2. Buy a microphone that is good for that application.
>
> > 3. Stop worrying about what it looks like, unless looks are critical for
> > that application (as they are for TV stuff, tribute bands, etc).
> > --scott
>
> Amen to that, and I might add: if you need something, let the
> experts--whose time you are requesting--what you need it for.
I'm sorry. I thought I did. I said from the beginning I wanted it
for voice recording and possible radio broadcast, something
unidirectional similar to the 55 SH. I had this idea to use it at a
basketball game (a silly idea, but sounded fun), but if those mics
don't work for that application, that's fine. I just want something
functional inside the 55c case I bought.
If it can't be done, it can't be done, but I figured I'd ask. Sorry
to waste your time.
Adam
jakdedert
IIRC, they did all of the above--including modding vintage mics with
modern (1978) elements--but that was 30 years ago. Possibly somebody
with a collection of EQ (or Mix?) magazines from the era could verify.
I believe that's where I read it....
jak
Richard Crowley
>> I purchased it on ebay, and the seller said the sound quality was
>> "amazing", though he said he tested it on a ham rig, and I don't know
>> much about that. I've been doing tons of research about impedance
>> matching, and I made sure to buy the right cables and all that, and
>> yet I can't get this thing to work the way I had hoped.
>
> You've been scammed, probably by Brian McCarty.
Which, of course, is hilarious since this message was
posted my Mr. McCarty in yet another of his silly
impersonations. Move along, nothing interesting
to see here.
Steve King
news:8b88c379-1a88-4cf3...@e26g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
No, don't be sorry. I get what you want to do. Nothing wrong with it. If
I were doing a 'period piece' production for video or film I might try what
you want to do. (I also might boom the performance with a Schoeps ;-) If
you want to do it for your own amusement, go ahead. I think many posters
could not get around the idea that the quality of the microphone sound was
secondary to the idea of using a cool looking old microphone. Also, you
were shy about telling us about your real priorities and applications, which
sent things off on a tangent. You can't blame a bunch of people who spend
their time pushing the quality envelope of recorded sound to the utmost for
having difficulty understanding your 'other than sound' reasons for wanting
to use the mic in question. At one time the 55c was extensively used as an
inexpensive public address microphone. At least three radio stations I
worked for in the 50s had them. They got used on stands at 'remotes',
broadcast events like store openings, etc. They were used in broadcast
booths at sports events. They were cheap and rugged and cool looking, so
they got used even though there were many better choices to be had. There
were a bunch of other mics used in that period that sucked just as much from
a pure sound point of view. However, AM radio was and is severely limited
in its ability to deliver good sound, so mics such as the 55 were often
'good enough'. Try one of the suggestions you've got about replacing the
capsule. It will be a fun project even if the directional pattern and
directional frequency response leaves much to be desired, because of the
case design.
Steve King
Steve King
Scott Dorsey
>
>On the subject of #3, didn't they modify vintage mics for the 'Buddy
>Holley Story', including some 55's? Seems I read, back when the movie
>came out, a story about how they shot many of the musical performances live.
I think those were the 55S, which they put SM-57 elements in. Again, the
grille screws things up badly, but it's good enough if you absolutely need
that look. And for that film, they did.
>Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Buddy_Holly_Story> mentions
>the live concert scenes, but nothing about the technology involved.
>They do go into depth about numerous historical innacuracies in the
>movie....
Well, again, the 55 was designed to be rugged at the expense of sound
quality.... rock musicians would never have been trusted with a Shure 300
on stage...
Scott Dorsey
>
>I'm sorry. I thought I did. I said from the beginning I wanted it
>for voice recording and possible radio broadcast, something
>unidirectional similar to the 55 SH. I had this idea to use it at a
>basketball game (a silly idea, but sounded fun), but if those mics
>don't work for that application, that's fine. I just want something
>functional inside the 55c case I bought.
The 55SH isn't really very unidirectional. As I pointed out earlier,
it's an SM-57 capsule, but because of the grille, the directionality is
totally screwed up.
air...@gmail.com
Thank you very much for your kind words. I feel a bit relieved now,
as I was getting very stressed, thinking I was pissing everyone off.
I am glad I asked though, as I did get some great ideas from this
forum, so thank you all again.
Adam
air...@gmail.com
I'm not trying to reopen an old topic, but I have a question about
something I saw on ebay, here:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Antique-Fifties-Shure-55SH-Microphone-with-Base_W0QQitemZ330200644579QQihZ014QQcategoryZ64449QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
On ebay, a salesman sold a Shure 55SH for $710. It appears to be the
same model that sells for $150 in stores, but the salesman claimed it
was an antique vintage mic, and said something like "there's no
telling what legend sang through this mic!"
Was there a vintage Shure 55SH before the model that's out now? Or
did he just rip someone off?
Adam
Scott Dorsey
>On ebay, a salesman sold a Shure 55SH for $710. It appears to be the
>same model that sells for $150 in stores, but the salesman claimed it
>was an antique vintage mic, and said something like "there's no
>telling what legend sang through this mic!"
It's true. Just because they made it last week doesn't mean that some
legend couldn't have sung through it in the week since it was made.
>Was there a vintage Shure 55SH before the model that's out now? Or
>did he just rip someone off?
The 55 was the original mike. The 55S was the smaller version. The
55SH was the reissue of the smaller version with an SM57 element.
Each one progressively gets more usable as you go down the line. And
yes, $710 for a 55SH is a total rip off... but I think $150 for one
is a ripoff too.
--sco
Steve King
news:fltrk1$ljf$1...@panix2.panix.com...
mount and had a premium price... the broadcast version, as some called it.
Steve King
air...@gmail.com
in the mic with an SM58 capsule, and it sounds fantastic! Here is the
test: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6685187232208518932
I had to remove the original capsule (which is still intact and
usable) and its transformer, but I left the housing so that the new
capsule could be suspended from it using electrical tape that attached
at the top and bottom. I get strong output from it, although I'm not
sure how the grill is affecting the sound (as was warned). It still
seems to be pretty unidirectional.
I generally have to be within about 4-5 inches of the mic to get good
sound pickup with bass (the test was from about 4-5 inches).
I hear this is typical of all SM58s, so I expected that.
I get a very slight hiss when I turn the gain on the mixer up that I
don't get with an SM57 that I have. I think the problem is that the
cable I have for it has a 1/4" mono connector at the end, which I then
use a hi-z/lo-z transformer to fit into an XLR input. I think I need
a cable with an XLR connector at the end as opposed to a transformer.
Does this make sense?
Anyway, this is what wound up happening. Thank you all for your help
and ideas! I'm really happy with the result!
Adam
Peter Larsen
> Just to let everyone know what I did, I wound up replacing the capsule
> in the mic with an SM58 capsule, and it sounds fantastic! Here is the
> test: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6685187232208518932
Not neutral, but you never wanted that and there is bit of unuqie
flavouring to it from the case, congrats!
> I get a very slight hiss when I turn the gain on the mixer up that I
> don't get with an SM57 that I have. I think the problem is that the
> cable I have for it has a 1/4" mono connector at the end, which I then
> use a hi-z/lo-z transformer to fit into an XLR input. I think I need
> a cable with an XLR connector at the end as opposed to a transformer.
> Does this make sense?
Yes.
> Anyway, this is what wound up happening. Thank you all for your help
> and ideas! I'm really happy with the result!
You should so be. You have a unique one off "vintage-style" sound.
Mike Rivers
> Just to let everyone know what I did, I wound up replacing the capsule
> in the mic with an SM58 capsule,
> I had to remove the original capsule (which is still intact and
> usable) and its transformer
Did you replace the transformer with one from an SM58 or did you
connect the wires from the capsule directly to the connector at the
base of the mic?
> I get a very slight hiss when I turn the gain on the mixer up that I
> don't get with an SM57 that I have. I think the problem is that the
> cable I have for it has a 1/4" mono connector at the end, which I then
> use a hi-z/lo-z transformer to fit into an XLR input.
This is a problem. You're taking a low impedance/low level output from
the capsule, and running it through a transformer that further steps
down the voltage.
> I think I need
> a cable with an XLR connector at the end as opposed to a transformer.
That's correct. One "modification" to an SM57 (and I assume this also
applies to an SM58 since they're essentially the same capsule) is to
remove the transformer. This improves the low frequency response and
reduces some distortion, at the cost of a slightly lower output
level.
Assuming you have no transformer in your mic now (or even if you do),
you should rewire the connector at the base of the microphone to
conform to the "low impedance" configuration as shown on the schematic
(http://k-bay106.com/shure55a.pdf). Then use a piece of two conductor
shielded cable to go between the mic connector and an XLR. If you use
the original Shure wiring inside the mic (you should), the cable
shield goes to Pin 1 on both the mic connector and the XLR, and pins 2
and 3 of the mic connector go to the corresponding pins on the XLR.
This should give you a normal SM58 output level which, at a distance
of 4-5 inches, should require less than full gain on your preamp.
air...@gmail.com
> Did you replace the transformer with one from an SM58 or did you
> connect the wires from the capsule directly to the connector at the
> base of the mic?
At first I connected the capsule directly to the original connector
(two wires, one green and one yellow which perfectly matched the wires
on SM58), and got a very good sound, but there was substantial hiss
(not huge, but noticeable). Although I've done some soldering before,
I didn't want to cut the cable and replace it with an XLR connector
just yet (mostly because it's the only vintage connector I have, and I
didn't want to mess it up), so I decided to try installing the
internal transformer from the SM58, which I had just managed to get
out by basically boiling the glue around it (as had been suggested on
the internet). It was messy, and I wasn't sure the transformer was
going to work, but I attached it and got significantly higher output
and less noticeable hiss. I was even able to slide it into the same
slot the original vintage transformer was housed in!
I also did not notice much of a difference between the sound quality
with or without the internal transformer (they both sounded warm),
though my ears are probably just not that sensitive!
> This is a problem. You're taking a low impedance/low level output from
> the capsule, and running it through a transformer that further steps
> down the voltage.
Yeah, that's what I thought
> Assuming you have no transformer in your mic now (or even if you do),
> you should rewire the connector at the base of the microphone to
> conform to the "low impedance" configuration as shown on the schematic
> (http://k-bay106.com/shure55a.pdf). Then use a piece of two conductor
> shielded cable to go between the mic connector and an XLR. If you use
> the original Shure wiring inside the mic (you should), the cable
> shield goes to Pin 1 on both the mic connector and the XLR, and pins 2
> and 3 of the mic connector go to the corresponding pins on the XLR.
I will probably try this. The cable I have is this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Microphone-Cord-Cable-For-Shure-55-51-708_W0QQitemZ290196073963QQihZ019QQcategoryZ64449QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Am I assuming correctly that if I simply remove the 1/4" connector and
replace it with an XLR connector (wiring it the way you suggested) I
will have a proper lo-z cable for my microphone?
Thanks again for all your help, Mike, and thank you Peter for your
comments!
Adam
Mike Rivers
> The cable I have is this:http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Microphone-Cord-Cable-For-Shure-55-51-708...
> Am I assuming correctly that if I simply remove the 1/4" connector and
> replace it with an XLR connector (wiring it the way you suggested) I
> will have a proper lo-z cable for my microphone?
There's not enough information to tell how the cable is wired, or even
what type of cable is inside the jacket. First step is to unscrew the
shell of the 1/4" plug and try to determine if the cable has two
conductors inside the shield or just one. If it's two conductor,
you're in good shape. I suspect that this may be the case since the
seller is offering an XLR version at the same price, which suggests
(if he's making them right) that he's using 2-conductor cable.
According to the Shure diagram, there's a jumper between pins 1 and 2
inside the connector on the mic end. You'll want to remove this as
well when you modify the cable. To be sure, write to the seller and
ask him how he's wired the cable.
air...@gmail.com
Ok, so I unscrewed the 14" end and took a look. I don't know much
about this exactly (usually i fix these things by trial and error),
but it looks like there's two wires, a red and a white, and then there
is some exposed wire soldered onto the same part as the white wire.
Removing that jumper makes me nervous, because I don't want to damage
the connector. First, if I unscrew the connector, will I be able to
easily get it back in place? And then, what is a jumper and how to I
remove it? Is it just solder than I can melt off?
Thanks,
Adam
Mike Rivers
> Ok, so I unscrewed the 14" end and took a look. I don't know much
> about this exactly (usually i fix these things by trial and error),
> but it looks like there's two wires, a red and a white, and then there
> is some exposed wire soldered onto the same part as the white wire.
> Removing that jumper makes me nervous
> And then, what is a jumper and how to I
> remove it? Is it just solder than I can melt off?
Not to be mean and nasty, but I think you'd better get someone to do
the work. Watch and then you'll know more the next time you need to
make or modify a cable.
The fact that you have a red and white wire, plus an "exposed
wire" (that's the cable shield) means that you have the proper kind of
wire, but you need to remove the 1/4" plug and replace it with an
XLR.
A jumper is a piece of wire connected between two terminals on the
plug. It's represented in Figure D of the Shure data sheet by a dotted
line between pins 1 and 2 on the connector. And taking a second look
at that diagram, it looks like Pin 3 on the mic connector should go to
Pin 2 of the XLR, Pin 2 on the mic connector should go to Pin 3 of the
XLR and Pins 1 of both connectors should be connected to the cable
shield.
air...@gmail.com
> the work. Watch and then you'll know more the next time you need to
> make or modify a cable.
>
> The fact that you have a red and white wire, plus an "exposed
> wire" (that's the cable shield) means that you have the proper kind of
> wire, but you need to remove the 1/4" plug and replace it with an
> XLR.
>
> A jumper is a piece of wire connected between two terminals on the
> plug. It's represented in Figure D of the Shure data sheet by a dotted
> line between pins 1 and 2 on the connector. And taking a second look
> at that diagram, it looks like Pin 3 on the mic connector should go to
> Pin 2 of the XLR, Pin 2 on the mic connector should go to Pin 3 of the
> XLR and Pins 1 of both connectors should be connected to the cable
> shield.
Hehe, yeah, there's a professional engineer close by that should be
able to do it.
Thanks for the help, though!
Adam
air...@gmail.com
Sorry to bring back an old topic, but thank you everyone who helped me
make a hybrid out of my vintage 55c. It has turned out great! There
is currently a 58 element and transformer in it, and on Wednesday I
used it at a George Washington women's basketball game (for radio).
It was perfect! It was fun to use, and surprisingly effective! We
sat right next to the bench, and the student section was directly
behind me, and yet the mic sounded at least as good, if not better
than the normal headset my color guy was using. The broadcast was
also recorded by the technicians in the arena (for posterity I guess),
and he said it sounded great!
So thanks to all of you, especially for your patience with me.
Adam
mhml...@gmail.com
I know these posts are from 12 years ago but I'm hoping the posters and you are still active on this google group.
I just purchased a Shure 55 Fatboy, not sure when it was manufactured since the written material on the mike is not legible. The exterior is in fantastic shape and the interier components are all in tact. It has a TS 1/4" connector and I have NOT tested it at all. I have just ordered the TS to XLR adaptor but I'm anticipating that the Fatboy will sound terrible thus I'd like to convert it to the SM58 just as you did. Any advice in doing so would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Howard
Scott Dorsey
>I just purchased a Shure 55 Fatboy, not sure when it was manufactured since=
> the written material on the mike is not legible. The exterior is in fanta=
>stic shape and the interier components are all in tact. It has a TS 1/4" c=
>onnector and I have NOT tested it at all. I have just ordered the TS to XL=
>R adaptor but I'm anticipating that the Fatboy will sound terrible thus I'd=
> like to convert it to the SM58 just as you did. Any advice in doing so wo=
>uld be greatly appreciated. =20
Download the manual from Shure. Make sure you get the right one... I am
assuming from the fact that it came with a TS cable that it was the multi
impedance model. For modern inputs, set the switch to position M.
Take the Amphenol connector off that cable and throw the rest of it away
because it's not useful. Connect a cable with an XLR connector to the
Amphenol connector... you do NOT want to use an unbalanced cable with this
microphone once it's in medum-Z mode. The Amphenol connector is wired
with the same numbering as an XLR... pin 1 is shield, pin 2 hot, pin 3
ground. However, the pins are not in the same positions so look at the
numbers in the plastic block. Solder hot and fast because many of these
are old and crispy.
Putting an SM-58 capsule into one of these really doesn't change the sound
very much... it still sounds terrible even with the 58 capsule in there
because what is wrong with the sound is mostly the grille and body design
creating all kinds of internal resonances. And putting a 58 capsule inside
will substantially devalue it. So if it is working, I would not touch
it... just make up the correct cable so you can use it properly with a
normal balanced line.
If it isn't working, put a 58 capsule in there, sure.
--scott
MHMLSHURE
When I take the connector apart, I see that it actually has 3 wires, 1, 2, and 3 so I think it’s balanced but not sure. It’s paired with the TS connector for an unbalanced application. I ordered a Hosa MIT - 129 1/4” TS to XLR3M impedance transformer (connector) so I can use it with my amp that requires an XLR input. Not sure this will work for me. But it works perfectly right now with an old Karaoke platform I had laying around - the platform accepts the TS connector. I have to turn the volume up quite a bit however….
Based on your suggestion, I will NOT be installing the SM-58 capsule in the mike.
Any insights would be greatly appreciated.
Howard