SM58 as good for instruments as SM57?

tallman said:
It's *not* the same sound as the 57 -- I would characterize it as being more "open" and aggressive on guitars.
Click to expand...
Yeah -- given that they're the EXACT same capsule with the same polar pattern (ball-off), that makes a lot of sense...

:rolleyes:
 
Roll eyes as much as you want, it has a different windscreen, and thick foam windscreens are hardly acoustically transparent.
 
tallman said:
Roll eyes as much as you want, it has a different windscreen, and thick foam windscreens are hardly acoustically transparent.
Click to expand...
Have you pulled off the ball screen on a 58? The foam inside the ball is less than a 1/8" thick. Hardly what I would call a thick foam wind screen.

I just recorded this, CMF Jam with a 58 right in front of my Blues Junior and I think it sounds fine. My playing may stink but the mic did a good job. :D

Blessings, Terry
 
tallman said:
Roll eyes as much as you want, it has a different windscreen, and thick foam windscreens are hardly acoustically transparent.
Click to expand...
Thanks... you haven't added any new info to this thread.... Others and myself have already pointed out that difference... it isn't quite as significant as you make it out to be.......

Care to recycle any more nuggets of information?
 
Yeah, you're a prick.

Now back to the topic at hand, according to the Shure website, the 58 has a higher response above 5k because of both the windscreen distance *and* the resonator assembly. This exaplains the more *open* and *aggressive* sound I was describing.

Still4Given: I certainly wasn't saying I don't like the 58 sound. More often than not, I choose a 58 with ball off over a 57. I think it often sounds better. This is my personal taste, but to each his own. The 58 sound does lead to listener fatigue more quickly though.
 
still4given: One other thing.. I just realized that you're talking about the ball-foam, whereas I'm reffering to the piece of foam that is on the end of the resoonator assembly on the 58, which doesn't exist on the 57. Yes, perhaps it's not terribly thick.. it is fairly dense, and it's very close to the diaphragm.
 
Wow, it is still here, and this guy's getting rude. How bizarre to get abusive over a reasonable and truthful enough post from the Bear.
 
I don't really want to spend a lot of time justifying myself, but the Bear made beligerant comments towards me, justifying it by saying I was repeating information he had already established, where in fact -- his last post was directly contradictory, and quite wrong.

He said that if you lose the ball off the end of the 58, it's the same as a 57, and that is not true due to a different resonator assembly, and the 2nd stage windscreen that remain on the 57 after screwing off the ball.

If he had left it at a disagreement, I'd leave it alone, but the rolleyes is condescending, and the comment "Care to recycle any more nuggets of information?" was just plain rude and uncalled for. I call a spade a spade.

These knee-jerk "I'm better than you" responses to anyone who comes to this board with an opinion is what is scaring off all the real-proffessionals who would otherwise post here. If Bear had used that thinly veiled antagonsim with me in my home, he would have been thrown out. He should expect a retaliation if he does so in a public forum.
 
If he did it in your home, you'd still need to chill out. Honestly, you make your own decision whether to leave it as a disagreement or not. He isn't forcing you to reply any more than his opinion is more valid. And it's true that this thread is ridiculously repetitive!
 
tallman said:
He said that if you lose the ball off the end of the 58, it's the same as a 57
Click to expand...
uh... no...... I said "...ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS...." -- I used that term specifically to cover off the minor differences that do exist.

The only one being a prick here is yourself..........
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
The 57 and 58 use EXACTLY the same capsule.......... the ball on the 58 changes its response slightly -- take the ball end off and you've got your 57............
Click to expand...

I apologize.
 
I am correct -- they do use EXACTLY the same capsule........

The "essentially" part was in another post (same topic, different forum) so that was my mistake....... the content of my posts here however, was bang on...

You made them sound like totally different mics - they aren't...... and I look forward to your next "nugget" of information, or lack thereof.

:rolleyes:
 
tallman said:
Hey Terry, I really like your playing. Were all of the guitars recorded with the 58, or just the lead guitar?
Click to expand...


No, Just the lead. Someone posted up the jam track and a few of us added our own lead to it. This was my attempt. It was really interesting to hear all of the different ideas guys came up with. Music is truely a wonderful gift to mankind. :)

Thanks for the nice words.

Blessings, Terry
 
I have an old SM 57 that sounds different than my new SM 57. Is it possible that the differences we're hearing are due to random variations and entropy (entropy = the tendancy for all systems to degenerate into chaos)? This discussion is certainly tending toward chaos. ;)
 
Of course there is some element of randomness. Shure periodically has to retool, and when that happens, a new batch might come out sounding a little different. If the difference is *significant* you are more likely to be hearing wear & tear, exposure to the elements, or abuse.

The 57 and the 58, however, are intentionally designed to accentuate different frequencies.
 
I'm not sure that's true. I think the difference in frequencies is a result of the added windscreen protection on the 58 more so than a deliberate goal of a particular frequency curve.

Blessings, Terry
 
If a 58 can be unscrewed to become a 57, why not buy only 58's and always have the option of either/or? seems that people prefer the 57.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top