H
Henri Devill
New member
Racked API and Neve mic pres...LA2A..Leveling amp...
Don
Don
harley96
New member
Blue Bear Sound said:
Aren't you tired yet,Bruce????
Next your gonna hear ,"my portastudio is what the pros use!!"
analog all the way...
A
ALBERTPIKE
New member
Blue Bear Sound said:
Directly from the Shure website:
It is true the SM57 and SM58 microphones are based on the same cartridge design. The main difference between them is in the grille design. The SM58 was designed for vocal application and it uses a separate grille with a very effective pop filter. The SM57 was designed as an instrument microphone where smaller grille size is preferred. In this application the pop and wind are not usually a concern. The SM57 uses an integral resonator/grille assembly, where grille is actually a part of the cartridge. These two grille designs place the diaphragm of the microphones in a different acoustical environment. First of all, the distance from the top of the grille to the diaphragm is significantly shorter on the SM57 compared to that of the SM58. This allows for closer sound pickup with even more pronounced proximity effect. Secondly, a different resonator/grille assembly design of the SM57 is responsible for its slightly higher output above 5 kHz.
www.shure.com
C
chessparov
New member
SM57 + good pop screen (not foam!) will provide clearer vocals than
the SM58 by itself. Try it and see-I mean hear.
The foam ball on the '58 compromises the high end response somewhat.
Chris
P.S. You should be able to get a good pop screen for around $30.
Well worth it to avoid "popping".
the SM58 by itself. Try it and see-I mean hear.
The foam ball on the '58 compromises the high end response somewhat.
Chris
P.S. You should be able to get a good pop screen for around $30.
Well worth it to avoid "popping".
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Fine - BUT.... how is a singer going to make use of that additional 1/2 inch worth of proximity without getting pop/breath noise in the mic, eh????
ALBERTPIKE said:
A
ALBERTPIKE
New member
Again, from the Shure Knowledge Database:
Question
I am a die hard Shure user. I used an SM58 for my vocals for years. One night I switched to an SM57 and it seemed like it was a little hotter than the 58. Everyone I talk to swears that the 58 is a better mic for vocals, but it just doesn't seem like it to me. I have still been using the 57 for my vocals. Now the beta series has come out. What differences are there between the beta and non beta? Which mic is the "hottest" between the 57, 58, Beta 57, and the Beta 58? What's the best way to tell which mic best suits my range and vocal style?
Answer
At 01/15/2001 09:49 PM we wrote - The SM58 and SM57 do use the same cartridge. The grill, though, does effect the frequency response to some extent. At a distance, the difference is probably not noticable. But at extremely close distances, the difference is noticeable. Due to the grill, a person's mouth can get closer to the diaphragm of an SM57, thus causing more proximity effect and increased bass when compared to the SM58.
Question
I am a die hard Shure user. I used an SM58 for my vocals for years. One night I switched to an SM57 and it seemed like it was a little hotter than the 58. Everyone I talk to swears that the 58 is a better mic for vocals, but it just doesn't seem like it to me. I have still been using the 57 for my vocals. Now the beta series has come out. What differences are there between the beta and non beta? Which mic is the "hottest" between the 57, 58, Beta 57, and the Beta 58? What's the best way to tell which mic best suits my range and vocal style?
Answer
At 01/15/2001 09:49 PM we wrote - The SM58 and SM57 do use the same cartridge. The grill, though, does effect the frequency response to some extent. At a distance, the difference is probably not noticable. But at extremely close distances, the difference is noticeable. Due to the grill, a person's mouth can get closer to the diaphragm of an SM57, thus causing more proximity effect and increased bass when compared to the SM58.
Blue Bear Sound
New member
You missed what I was saying completely.......
The Shure info is nice in theory... in actual practice though, at such a close distance, the "mouth noise" of the vocalist is going to be strong enough that you can't actually take advantage of any increased proximity effect...........
Don't forget, we're talking a difference of about half an inch here..... "eating the mic" with a 58 results in some hefty popping/breath noise, getting a half inch in closer with a 57 is only going to make it significantly worse.... and you can't use a pop screen at such distances..........
Where the additional proximity effect CAN be useful is for mic'ing amps and instruments where breath noise is not a factor..........
The Shure info is nice in theory... in actual practice though, at such a close distance, the "mouth noise" of the vocalist is going to be strong enough that you can't actually take advantage of any increased proximity effect...........
Don't forget, we're talking a difference of about half an inch here..... "eating the mic" with a 58 results in some hefty popping/breath noise, getting a half inch in closer with a 57 is only going to make it significantly worse.... and you can't use a pop screen at such distances..........
Where the additional proximity effect CAN be useful is for mic'ing amps and instruments where breath noise is not a factor..........
crawdad
Dammit, Jim, Shut Up!
I got a foam windscreen for my 57 and I can now sing right into the mic at close range. Bear in mind that i have been recording my own vocals for some time, so I know how to avoid P and B blasts anyway by habit. The windscreen really helps a lot for vocals. It also has about a 1/2 inch of foam at the end, which prevents you from getting right on the grille--like an automatic safety feature. If I am micing an amp, I take the windscreen off.
Blue Bear Sound
New member
But then, that's pretty much the same as a 58 then! 
Have you ever compared the 2 with your own voice, Crawdad - to see exactly what the difference may be? (serious question - no sarcasm intended...!)
Have you ever compared the 2 with your own voice, Crawdad - to see exactly what the difference may be? (serious question - no sarcasm intended...!)
Last edited:
Chris Shaeffer
Peavey ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've owned and used both mics. They are so alike in sound that it almost doesn't matter which one you get- with a few important exceptions.
I'd go for the 58 if you also need a mic for live vocals. The ball grill and filter makes it *slightly* easier to use for live vocals and it looks like a live vocal mic. That is the ONLY reason I'd buy a 58 instead of a 57.
If you plan on recording in the studio with it, get the 57. It is *slightly* more versatile. The "added proximity effect" is only useful for instruments, as Bruce said, and is VERY useful there: especially on guitar amps, in my experience. I've also used the 57 on acoustic guitar, vocals, and bass drum all to good effect.
The 57 seems like a better value for the recordist, while the 58 seems oriented towards live sound- though they are close enough that you can use either for both applications.
Take care,
Chris
I'd go for the 58 if you also need a mic for live vocals. The ball grill and filter makes it *slightly* easier to use for live vocals and it looks like a live vocal mic. That is the ONLY reason I'd buy a 58 instead of a 57.
If you plan on recording in the studio with it, get the 57. It is *slightly* more versatile. The "added proximity effect" is only useful for instruments, as Bruce said, and is VERY useful there: especially on guitar amps, in my experience. I've also used the 57 on acoustic guitar, vocals, and bass drum all to good effect.
The 57 seems like a better value for the recordist, while the 58 seems oriented towards live sound- though they are close enough that you can use either for both applications.
Take care,
Chris
darrin_h2000
Banned
Most of my amature (karaoke clientle) know the 58 and ask for it first, and if thier vocal style (rock tennor, screamer, raspy but loud) will benifit from this choice, I will put on in front of them.
Most of the time th 57 is a musicians microphone, kind of like how joe satriani is a musicians musician, performs better than almost anyone but not as popular as britney spears. So only musicians are familiar with it.
Somone should do a shootout with those two in these situations, I once saw a Queen concert on vh1 where they miced up the drums,including the kick with sm58s
Most of the time th 57 is a musicians microphone, kind of like how joe satriani is a musicians musician, performs better than almost anyone but not as popular as britney spears. So only musicians are familiar with it.
Somone should do a shootout with those two in these situations, I once saw a Queen concert on vh1 where they miced up the drums,including the kick with sm58s
Blue Bear Sound
New member
...I'd take a Beyer M69 over a 58 for live vocals anyday!juvenal.floyd said:
L
littledog
New member
The M69 is a great mic. But not good with handling noise and a little too fragile though for my taste for workhorse live handheld vocal use. The grill dents pretty easily, and those little screws have ways of coming loose and getting lost. I've got a couple that I use mostly for horn micing.
I like the EV N/D series. I've got three N/D 457's and a N/D 357. I think they sound as good as the M69 and they totally blow SM58's away.
I like the EV N/D series. I've got three N/D 457's and a N/D 357. I think they sound as good as the M69 and they totally blow SM58's away.
C
chessparov
New member
Out of all the dynamics I've sung through (a lot!) so far the
M69's bigger brother, the M88TG (or M88) sounds best on me
for uptempo material onstage or in the (home) studio.
My voice is too bright for most of the newer Neodynium designs.
I'm curious if anyone here goes back and listens to a vocal through a SM58 vs. a SM57+popscreen, whether they will notice
the difference in clarity-I sure do!
The other tendency is for the SM58 to emphasize nasality compared to the SM57.
That's why Tom Petty has favored the '57 live and on his records.
(he's also used the Shure Beta 57a)
Chris
M69's bigger brother, the M88TG (or M88) sounds best on me
for uptempo material onstage or in the (home) studio.
My voice is too bright for most of the newer Neodynium designs.
I'm curious if anyone here goes back and listens to a vocal through a SM58 vs. a SM57+popscreen, whether they will notice
the difference in clarity-I sure do!
The other tendency is for the SM58 to emphasize nasality compared to the SM57.
That's why Tom Petty has favored the '57 live and on his records.
(he's also used the Shure Beta 57a)
Chris
crawdad
Dammit, Jim, Shut Up!
Blue Bear Sound said:But then, that's pretty much the same as a 58 then!
Have you ever compared the 2 with your own voice, Crawdad - to see exactly what the difference may be? (serious question - no sarcasm intended...!)
Hey Blue! I am sure you are right! I haven't done that comparison recently, but I should. I used to record everything back in the early 80's with a 58. The tracks all got edgy when they were summed together (old Teac 3340 days). I will do a comparison and see how close they are. I imagine pretty close.
The only reason for my post, which I should have mentioned, is that the 58 is more expensive--and you can get basically the same sound cheaper with a 57 and a windscreen.
For me, the 57 is my choice for rock vocals that need to cut through a mix in a midrangey sort of way. For gentler vocals, I audition my LD condensers until I find one that comes closest to my vision. Anyway, I'll do a comparison and post the results.
A
ALBERTPIKE
New member
Okay, I have used Sm57 for years without the windscreen live for backup vocals and yes I eat the mike. I prefer this to an SM58. I am not a good, powerful singer and this works for me. This would not be good for a powerful vocalist, but it can be helpful for some of us. I think the info from the Shure website provides the technical explanation for this. I also close mic my guitar amp with a 57 both live and recording, 2mm from the amp face. Without belaboring this point any further, I would say this: it's your 1/2 inch of proximity effect, use it like you want to!
PS -- I agree: when putting your pretties down for perpetuity without a pop filter, the plosives might be problematic.
PS -- I agree: when putting your pretties down for perpetuity without a pop filter, the plosives might be problematic.
Last edited:
R
relliker
Member
I own both a 57 and a 58.... I found out I'm experimenting more with the 57 as it's design is for both instrument AND voice....but my wife's complaining of missing lycra in her stockings when I use the 57 for vocals. You'll need a wife to get free pop filter material and believe me, that's expensive....
I tried mic'ing a djembe with the 57 and 58. The 58 missed on the bass tones probably bcoz of the built-in pop-sphere. Seems I'm more in favour for the 57 as an all-rounder.....just heed the (wife) warnings though!
I tried mic'ing a djembe with the 57 and 58. The 58 missed on the bass tones probably bcoz of the built-in pop-sphere. Seems I'm more in favour for the 57 as an all-rounder.....just heed the (wife) warnings though!
Giganova
gimmi your mic!
For SAX recording I wouldn't recommend these mics at all! They will sound very tinny (I've tried them with my tenor sax). Go for a large condensor (expensive, though), the AKG C1000, Sennheiser 421 or 441, or the Neumann 184. These mics are great for recording sax!
bubinski
New member
Same mic, differant head, 57 is great for micing guitar cab's, but 58 is better for vocals cause the screen.
A
ALBERTPIKE
New member
Giganova said:
Used Sennheiser 421 goes for about $250 on ebay. I've seen these used in studios for many purposes. Question: ignoring the cost factor, is this a much better all-purpose studio mic than the Shure SM 57/58?
