Sm 57 / 58

M

Miseria_Cantare

New member
Just got the SM58 and SM57 Mics.
Since the only mics I've owned before have been-
Generic Computer Mic
£15 Hitachi mic
Behringer B1

I am now amazed at the quality of the SM58.
When I bought the Behringer I thought I'd give them a chance despite everyone seeming to hate Behringer, because twas the first mic I'd bought.
But the SM58 seems to pwn the Behringer. I guess I should've got the studio projects B1 instead :D

Anyway, I've noticed, the difference between the 58/57 is the 57 seems to be alot more sharp/harsh, with vocals, (don't know any other word to describe it) whereas the 58 sort of muffles the sound, gives it more bass, alot nicer overall. Am I right?
 
well the 58 isnt as much of a studio mic as it is a live vocal mic. neither is really considered a studio vocal mic.

you've got the basic idea of a 57 i'd say. although to be more descriptive it brings out the high end in anything, good for rock guitars, snares, hi-hats, and toms, as well as other uses.
 
Ok...since you've only posted 26 times I won't bust your chops but, in the words of the infamous Blue Bear, they're the same mic. The SM57 is nice cuz it lets you get a little closer to instruments like snares -n- such. The 57 has a bit of a wind screen on it.

Heads up...give the search function a try. Search for SM57 vs. SM58 and see what crops up.

If you don't believe me...just ask The Bear!

:D Have a good one!
 
If you like what you hear so far, you'll be amazed how they sound through better mic pres!

Depending on the situation, these mics can be interchangeable. The 58 has a ball type wind screen, that's probably the difference you notice in the bass response.
 
punkin said:
Ok...since you've only posted 26 times I won't bust your chops but, in the words of the infamous Blue Bear, they're the same mic. The SM57 is nice cuz it lets you get a little closer to instruments like snares -n- such. The 57 has a bit of a wind screen on it.

Heads up...give the search function a try. Search for SM57 vs. SM58 and see what crops up.

If you don't believe me...just ask The Bear!

:D Have a good one!
Click to expand...


Yeah, I had done searches on these mics before anyway, and I realise they're the same mic..
I guess it was a pointless thread really. I'm just happy to have finally got some 'decent' mics :)
 
Yup...lotsa folks that paved the way got the job done with those mics. You'll always want to have a couple of them on hand anyways.
 
thexflamesxburn said:
well the 58 isnt as much of a studio mic as it is a live vocal mic. neither is really considered a studio vocal mic.

you've got the basic idea of a 57 i'd say. although to be more descriptive it brings out the high end in anything, good for rock guitars, snares, hi-hats, and toms, as well as other uses.
Click to expand...
What on earth are you talking about?!?!?!

I'd be willing to take a bet with anyone that more vocals tracks have been cut with 57s/58s than ANY other dynamic mic. All the Beyers, Sennheisers and of course SM-7s and RE-20s .... nope, the 57 and its predecessor the 545 have done far more.

Secondly, I'm not sure you've EVER heard a 57/58 if you think they "bring out the high end in anything". One of their most noticable characteristics (and some would say shortcomings) is that they have relatively LITTLE high end response. Why does the singer at every gig sound like they're singing through a sock? It's because they're using a 58 and the FOH guy hasn't put any highs back into it yet.

I wouldn't describe it as being particularly good for hi-hats or toms either but that's just my personal opinion. :o

Not to bust your balls man, but also it's just wrong to let a straight-up uninformed pair of comments like these go uncorrected, for the good of the uninitiated reading this!! :)

Peace,

Nik
 
punkin said:
And I gave up my last rep point for the day on a different thread :D
Click to expand...
Haha ... well I just thought I'd make a proper post for once rather than goofing around in the Cave all the time. :D
 
punkin said:
Blue Bear! WHERE ARE YOU!!!!!!!!!! :D
Click to expand...

I don't need Bear to tell me what I hear. I have owned both 57/58's and have compared them side by side for vocals and guitars. With the screen on the 58, it definately sounds muffled compared to a 57. Ok, I know, just take the screen off. They do sound pretty close when you take it off but now you have an exposed/unprotected diaphragm. I have'nt tried either mic on low frequency apps like kick/bass so I'm not sure how they compare in that respect. Personally, I would'nt waste my money again on a 58. You can always throw a foam windscreen on a 57 and still have a very well protected diaphragm. Also, the 57 is cheaper.

noisedude said:
Secondly, I'm not sure you've EVER heard a 57/58 if you think they "bring out the high end in anything". One of their most noticable characteristics (and some would say shortcomings) is that they have relatively LITTLE high end response. Why does the singer at every gig sound like they're singing through a sock? It's because they're using a 58 and the FOH guy hasn't put any highs back into it yet.
Click to expand...

They definately don't bring out the high end in anything. They lack high end in a big way.
 
thexflamesxburn said:
well the 58 isnt as much of a studio mic as it is a live vocal mic. neither is really considered a studio vocal mic.
Click to expand...

I have used 58s in many studios, even on vocals. Try a vocal take with a SM58 in a control room with the monitors cranked. The 58 does a great job of rejecting any bleed and you get the bonus of a very "live" sounding take. This works great for heavy hiphop and metal vocals.
 
Minimal bleed is definately a good feature of a 57/58. I have used a 57 and a grand piano vst on my pc, monitoring both thru my monitors while recording and I did'nt get much bleed. I learned the hard way not to do that with a condensor. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top