Shure vocal stage microphones

[voice-overguy]

Funny thing happened to me today. I've had a Shure Beta 58A (wireless, but that doesn't matter here) for about six years now. It's great and it gives a bright and clear sound. But having a low voice (Neil Diamond/Don LaFontaine style) I wondered if an SM58 wouldn't work better on my voice. So I ordered a (wired) SM58 online. After having ordered it, I found out that there is such thing as a counterfeit Shure SM58. I was very worried. Checked the internet for ways to spot a fake. By the time I got the mike, I knew that the thingie in the middle of the sphere had to be 4mm and not 5. I knew that when you unscrew the sphere, the foam over the element shound be gray. I knew that there should be no sticker on the side of the element. I knew that when you unscrew the middle, there should be a red stamp with initials of the quality controle person on the print, the box contained a Shure bumper sticker and a cable strap, etc. I checked all that and I was convinced that I bought the genuine article. On top of that, the seller was a respected company in Germany.

I did a test with my new SM58 and found the sound to be a little less bright, it had a little more warm bass and because of that I had a little more difficulty to pop out of the music and make every word understandable. I expected that, so no problem there.

I've always prefered the look and colour sceme of the older 565D and found a vintage 565SD (version with switch) on eBay. I won the auction and got the mike today. I tested it today and couldn't believe my ears. This relic from the 1970's sounded better than my SM58! In fact, it sounds as bright as my Beta 58A. I could hardly hear the difference between the Beta 58A and the 565SD.

Do you think my SM58 is a fake? Have the counterfeitters found the mistakes they previously made on the internet and did they adapt their fakes so that you can no longer see the difference? Or was the old 565 a better microphone that sounds as good as a Beta 58A (it looks better, especially when wearing a tux)? And if that's the case, how come the SM58 became the legend and the 565 didn't?

Thank you for helping me out here.

 

[dgatwood]

There were several different manufacturing runs of SM58s in different countries. Apparently a couple of those runs sounded okay, but most of the ones I've used are as you described them---muddy sounding with way too much lower mids/upper bass response and nothing up at the top when compared with the 565 or other unidyne/unisphere mics from previous generations. The word I generally use for the sound is "tubby". The PG58 has the same problem, presumably for the same reason.

As for why the SM58 became a legend? Marketing dollars.

 

[voice-overguy]

THX Dgatwood.

Well, if I reduce some low I still have a sound that differs a little from the sound of the 565 or the Beta 58A. It's as if there's a matress between me and the mike (although that's a bit exagerated) but I can't believe one has to put the 80Hz at -9 to get a better sound out of the SM58. Wherever I went, I always had a great sound with a SM58 before.

So either I bought a fake (but then it has to be a darn good copy) or there's something wrong with the mike and I'll have to use the warrenty.

Oh, the box says my SM58 was maden in 2002.

And when I compare the fequency curve, there shouldn't be that much difference between the Unisphere I (565) and the SM58. On the other hand, the difference between the 565 and the Beta 58A should be big. Sometimes I just don't understand.