First Microphone: SM57 or SM58?

[HomeRec]

I'm planning to pick up a microphone for a home recording solution I'm putting together. The primary use for the microphone, at least initially, will be vocals. However, I may eventually want to use it for other applications.

The two microphones I'm presently considering are the Shure SM57 and the Shure SM58. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.

Shure SM57: The all-in-one microphone everyone seems to own, it's a little less expensive than the SM58, and is advertised as being able to do everything. However, the microphone's emphasis seems to be on instrumental applications. Also, for vocal recording, windscreens seem to be a little tougher to find, and a little more expensive.

Shure SM58: This microphone is supposedly tailored for vocal recording, and it is easy to find windscreens for. However, it is a little more expensive than the SM57, and seems to be a bit more of a "one trick pony". That is, it seems as though it is intended for vocals only.

I've listened to both, and they seem to sound similar to each other, with a slight edge going to the SM58. I looked at the response curves for both microphones, and they are different.

So basically, which of the two would be a good first microphone? I know a lot of people have the SM57, but is it a good choice for vocals? Can the SM58 be used effectively for other applications besides vocals? What are some statistics or factors I may be overlooking?

It's a bit confusing, even after reading Harvey Gerst's excellent post on microphones.

Finally, if there is a different microphone in the same price range that is a much better choice, I'd love to hear about it.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

They are identical - the response difference is due to the windscreen on the 58....

Unscrew the windscreen of the 58 and you have, essentially, a 57........

Bruce

 

[HomeRec]

They are identical - the response difference is due to the windscreen on the 58....

Unscrew the windscreen of the 58 and you have, essentially, a 57........

Bruce

I'd heard that before, I think in another post. So the SM58 is an SM57 with a wire ball? Can you actually remove the wire ball and use the SM58 as you would an SM57? Also, can you buy an SM57 and a replacement SM58 ball, and use them together? The latter seems unlikely, as the microphone would need to have the appropriate threads to screw on the wire ball.

The two microphones list a different frequency response as well. Is that the ball again? The SM57 lists 40-15,000Hz, and the SM58 lists 50-15,000Hz.

Is there any difference in the SPL rating of the two microphones? For that matter, what is/are their SPL rating(s)? And are there any features (besides the wire ball) the SM58 has that the SM57 doesn't?

 

[HomeRec]

Actually...

Falling into the "why don't you check out the company FAQs first" category...

Can I use the SM58 for my guitar amp?

and

SM57 vs. SM58

Research, people, research!

(Of course, I'd still like to know the SPL rating(s)...)

P.S. - does anyone know if the Shure 75th Anniversary pack is still available? Also, what is/was included?

 

[vox]

Shure SM58: This microphone is supposedly tailored for vocal recording......


Finally, if there is a different microphone in the same price range that is a much better choice, I'd love to hear about it.

Ok, firstly the 58 is primarily tailored for vocal LIVE performance not recording, and just to make it even more confusing some artists actually use a 57 instead of a 58 on stage.

If you are a vocal / acoustic guitar kinda guy (and have a phantom power source) the Marshall MXL 603s is a great small diaphragm condenser which costs about the same amount as a 57.

If you are more likely to be recording vocals / electric guitars / live drums, or you don't have phantom power I'd go for the 57 over the 58.

Good luck

 

[HomeRec]

FYI

I asked Shure a question, and it's now actually listed in their FAQ section:

Using the SM58 without the ball grill

Good response time from the company, too.

vox - I have phantom power, but one of the things I may want to mic in the future is electric guitar, so it looks like the Marshall MXL 603s may not be the best choice. Besides, I can't seem to find it anywhere.

 

[chessparov]

HomeRec, If you're limiting your choice to those two, go for the SM57
as it will be more flexible. It's a good idea to get a windscreen anyway
to avoid popping on your recordings.

For vocals, I like my Sennheiser e835 and EV Cobalt C09 better than a
Shure SM58, they both have a better top end response (street price
e835 $100 or less, C09 $75 or less). The SM57 I also use is for variety,
and well... it is a classic!

If you're thinking about a condenser, according to their website, Studio
Projects is coming out with a B series. I assume that the B1 will be
competing with the Marshall 603s and will probably sound better based
on the quality of sound my C1 delivers

Are you set up to use phantom power?

 

[HomeRec]

Are you set up to use phantom power?

Yes.

Is the quality on the EV Cobalt series good? I saw the Co-4 and Co-7 the last time I was looking at microphones, but figured they were lower-end than the Shure microphones.

The Sennheiser looks good, and affordable. Is it an all-purpose or vocal microphone?

I had been considering a Studio Projects C1, since it's gotten excellent reviews. It's a little steep, but looks like it might be worth a try.

On the SM57, is there any windscreen other than the $12.50 Shure model that can be used with the microphone?

 

[Gidge]

I rather the sound of a sm57 with a pop filter than the sm58 with the ball on......anyone else feel this way?.....

as far as a windscreen (pop filter), i still use an old coat hanger and an old pair of my wifes pantyhose...the smell is truly inspirational.....

 

[chessparov]

HomeRec, the C1 sounds great! Well worth the $$. I prefer the e835 over
the Co9, however, their both built well and sound excellent if you need
a live mike. The e835 could be used for instruments too, even though
it's primarily a vocal mike. For $30 or less you can get a REAL windscreen,
or use Gidge's suggestion (great first date line by the way...).
A condenser mike will give a lot better sonic detail.

P.S. I agree with you Gidge-SM57+windscreen is better than SM58 alone!

 

[windowman]

If you're sure you aren't going to mic anything but electric guitar then the 57's good for that (although a 58 is fine too.)

If however you can only afford one mic and you think you might be recording something other than electric guitar someday then I'd follow the advice here and opt for a condenser mic. You can always dial out some of the high-end clarity which will make it reasonable for electric guitar and then have a good high quality mic for other things as well like vocals or acoustic guitar.

That Marshall MXL57 that Mars sells is only a hundred bucks and it sounds great but it's been my experience that you'll have to buy a shock mount for it which is another 50 bucks. Then you're only 30 dollars away from a MXL67 which comes with a shock mount and is essentially the same mic IMHO. The 67 will have a little better resale value someday probably but when you're talking about prices this low it doesn't matter a whole lot about the resale value I reckon. So I would opt for the 57/wshock mount and save 30 bucks.

I have an MP3 of a recording a friend of mine did at my studio a while back that just has a vocal, acoustic guitar, and one droning synth note. Both the guitar and the vocal were recorded with my 57. Just three sets of stereo tracks. I have to warn you though that this guy can't sing and he's a real religious fella so this tune is an old Keith Green "hymn". If hymns drive ya crazy then don't listen to it. But I think it's a real good representation of what the mic sounds like because of the sparness of tracks. And, while he's not a great singer I think he has a lot of heart and it shows. He never sang before and wanted to record it in honor of his mom who had just passed away, (a very religious lady.) You could tell he was kind of broken up about it and somehow it makes me sort of like the track even though he's no Elvis. He sang it acapella actually and I came back later and threw in a little guitar ending and added the synth note.

It's an odd way of downloading on this server because it requires you to left click everything. If you try to right click and "save target as" it will try to download an html page. So, you have to left click and make sure you choose to "save the file to disc" rather than play it from that location because it won't!

 

[vox]

Re: FYI

vox - I have phantom power, but one of the things I may want to mic in the future is electric guitar, so it looks like the Marshall MXL 603s may not be the best choice. Besides, I can't seem to find it anywhere.

I didn't mean that you can't use the MXL 603s to mic up an amp, just that the 57 is traditionally one of the 'first grab' mics for that application and you'll just have to be a little more careful about volume levels, the 603s might even be the better mic for certain types of tones.

 

[HomeRec]

Semantics

windowman - In your last post, was the "57" used in the recording the Marshall MX57 or the Shure SM57? It seems like the Marshall, but it's a bit of a syntactical conundrum.

vox - Ah. I thought you might have been saying that the 603s was not good for louder instruments. If I can find it, I'll check it out.

 

[windowman]

Oh, it was the Marshall MXL57. I would never mic an acoustic guitar with a Sure SM57. By the way, that Marshall usually sounds a little better on acoustic than it did there (although I still thought it sounded fine.) It was just a quickie recording I did for that guy and I had left the mixing board set up for the vocal and didn't bother with trying to get a good guitar sound. It was pretty close to sounding the way I wanted it to anyway so I decided it was good enough.

 

[HomeRec]

By the way, that Marshall usually sounds a little better on acoustic than it did there (although I still thought it sounded fine.) It was just a quickie recording I did for that guy and I had left the mixing board set up for the vocal and didn't bother with trying to get a good guitar sound. It was pretty close to sounding the way I wanted it to anyway so I decided it was good enough.

That's okay, I haven't even listened the song. I just wanted to make sure it was the Marshall you were talking about.

 

[windowman]

Well, you'll never hear it now. I took it down today; seeing how it is copywrited material and all. You didn't miss much anyway.

 

[HomeRec]

Well, you'll never hear it now. I took it down today; seeing how it is copywrited material and all. You didn't miss much anyway.

That's fine... to be honest, I really hadn't planned to listen to it anyway. However, I do appreciate your taking the time to post the link.