Shure S545 How Does It Compare ??

[demto]

I have a Shure S545 Unidyne 3 which I bought about 20 years ago.
The mic is in good condition and has had little use. I havn't recorded
anything for years.

I have started making a few recordings again lately just for fun, and have
been using this mic.

My question is how does the S545 compare with modern dynamic mics
[not condensers] in the $100-$150 price range.

Your opinions would be appreciated.

[Big Kenny]

A nose ahaed of a 57 in my book, Brian Wilson used them alot in the early daze

[Track Rat]

Originally Posted by Big Kenny

A nose ahaed of a 57 in my book, Brian Wilson used them alot in the early daze

Ditto (plus ten charactors of course).

[DAS19]

Ive read brians biography to bad it doesnt say anything about what mics they used. It only explains how he came to write the songs and how the tracks were put together sometimes.

Nice little fact big kenny.

[travelin travis]

I've seen many mentions of the old unidyne III's being superior to an sm57. I have a 545sd (made in mexico) that I like over an sm57.

[dgatwood]

Originally Posted by TravisinFlorida

I've seen many mentions of the old unidyne III's being superior to an sm57. I have a 545sd (made in mexico) that I like over an sm57.

Ditto for the Unisphere III series (e.g. 565) vs. the SM58, IMHO. Shure really doesn't make dynamics like they used to, IMHO. I used to use three 565s for live jazz band work and found that they cut through as an instrument mic where the 57s and 58s just got lost in the "mix", so to speak. Of course, if you're trying to bury the saxes in the mix, go ahead and mic then with an SM57. Might not be a bad idea, actually.

I made the mistake of buying a PG58 when I first got back into recording here in Cali, and it's muddy even compared to an SM58. A couple of weeks later, I mail-ordred a 565 on eBay. I used that mic for vocals until I got my first ribbon, and with decent pres, it wasn't bad. Too bad I also made the mistake of buying a Mackie CR-1604, whose pres are as muddy as a pig in April. *sigh*

[demto]

Thanks for your replies.

From what you are saying it seems that the 545 is at least the equal
of the SM57 and SM58.

Does anybody have any thoughts on how the 545 would compare with
the Beta 58a vocal mike ?

[notCardio]

I think it's going to depend a little on your voice. I don't know that I would call my 545s 'better' than my 57, maybe just 'different'. It might be better, or it might not. I would call them somewhat similar, especially if you use a slip on windscreen, which I do but probably shouldn't.

I would think a Beta 58, while still generally similar (in a very broad way) would be more of a different animal. I'm sure ( ) it depends on the source. Some sources are going to show up differences more than other sources.

[Obi-Wan zenabI]

I have one, and just did two consectutive sessions with my Jazz band. For the second one, I used an '80's Radio Shack electret on the quiet female vox and definitely liked my radio shlock better.

I know you did not want condensor comparisons, but hey, at least it's a short post!

[notCardio]

What are you using on your upright?

And what kind is it? And 3/4 or full size?

Inquiring minds.

[notCardio]

when you need him?

[demto]

Getting back to the 545 versus the Beta 58 would you think the Beta 58 is
distinctively better technically, ie cleaner, resolves finer detail, less self noise etc
and generally prefered by most users or is it maybe just a little better but doesn't
really shine out in a A to B comparison with the 545.

I suppose my real question is should I keep the 545 or spend out on a Beta 58.

I live a fair way from any microphone stockists so your opinions are valuable.

[Lt. Bob]

first ..... you should keep the 545 even if you get a Beta. You won't get much for it ...... you'll spend that money then you won't have anything. The extra mic will always be useful.

I have 2 old 545's that are probably 25 or even 30 years old. One is still my main mic for sax on live gigs but one of the things I like about it is it has a limited upper freq range so it doesn't give a 'bright' sax sound which I loathe.
But that same fact might make it sound a little muddy for vocals.
I pretty much use EV's for vocals on gigs. For recording I rarely use a dynamic ..... personal taste.

[notCardio]

are in the 35-40 year old range (old 4-pin connectors).

So my experiences may not apply.

[Lt. Bob]

Originally Posted by notCardio

(old 4-pin connectors).

.

Whoa! ........ haven't seen those in a while.

[notCardio]

Originally Posted by Lt. Bob

Whoa! ........ haven't seen those in a while.

I'm sure there's a reason for that.

They're old and they suck!!!

[Mc'guyversen]

I'd just like to add that (with age/use) all 545(s) don't sound the same.
I bought seven 545 mics for $70, and was amazed at the difference in sound from mic to mic.

1 was dead.

1 worked but sounded kinda thin and muffled.

3 others sound great, but differ from each other in output volume and bass response.
(all these sound and work very similar to SM-57s)

And the last two seem to be a super mics, they have a much higher output, sound fuller
and clearer than any SM-57 I've ever used.

[demto]

Still no firm opinions on the differences between the 545 and the Beta 58 then ?

I'm going to keep the 545 whatever happens. The question is whether the Beta 58
is distinctly better than the 545, and if so in what way.

I dont want to buy a Beta 58 and find there's virtually no difference between the two mics.