What can you tell me about the SM58?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ratamaster
  • Start date Start date
Bear..what I mean is good is good. To me, it all comes down to taste. Any thread here you go to you will see 100 different opinions on 12 different kick mics, or 12 different cabnet mics. Each person claims that there choice is the best. Its all taste. A certain preamp or mic will not present a band with a album to end all albums. So many other ducks have to be a row...along with talent. I hate when I walk into say Guitar Center and the kid behind the counter says " you gotta try this "man" ", it a killer. Well, I asked have you tried it? He'll always say no! He is just paroting what he has heard. I don't need to tell you any of this .This isn't ment for you its just a ......a..... well ok I'm ranting now> :)
 
On the right person it's a great mic. Normally, with most people, it's not so great when compared to other vocal mics. If I've tried three mics on someone and it's getting nowhere, then that's when the SM58 comes out and it works about 50 percent of the time in those instances.
 
I agree with BlueBear, different mics are for different people. But 58's are used on like every show i've seen on tv with vox! A bunch on my fav bands use them live, and they sound nice and clear. Recording, once again i agree with Blue, it's all about the source and what your trying to capture and make work!
 
jmorris said:
He compaired a beautiful U47 and sm57. He said "you know, not really such a big difference between the two". Its the very little things you notice. Bottom line, its all just taiste. :)
Click to expand...

With all due respect, but I have to disagree. The U47 sounds totally different from the SM57, it's a huge problem if someone can't hear that.

Actually it's a huge difference in sound.
 
So what can you tell me about the Beta 58, what is the diference between the Beta and M58?

Last weekend I used the m58 and it fulfills my expectations, I don´t know yet if it's the better mic for me, but it worked fine, maybe my voice sounded a little bit opaque, but fine.
 
Han said:
With all due respect, but I have to disagree. The U47 sounds totally different from the SM57, it's a huge problem if someone can't hear that.

Actually it's a huge difference in sound.
Click to expand...
I think what he was getting at was that we are obsessing over the last 10% of sound quality. Just about any mic will pick up most things, the 'big' differences in most of the mics we use are really just 1db or 2db differences at different points on the spectrum. The mathmatical differences are statisticly very small. So small, in fact, that much of the differences are a matter of interpretation because most of us don't have the facilities to properly test these things.
 
Farview said:
I think what he was getting at was that we are obsessing over the last 10% of sound quality. Just about any mic will pick up most things, the 'big' differences in most of the mics we use are really just 1db or 2db differences at different points on the spectrum. The mathmatical differences are statisticly very small. So small, in fact, that much of the differences are a matter of interpretation because most of us don't have the facilities to properly test these things.
Click to expand...


Jason, thanks for the response. This is a home recording forum and most home studio owners don't own a Neumann U47.

I do have a Neumann M149 and I've worked with the U47, U67 and U87.

Compared to a Shure SM57, a Beyer M88 or a Sennheiser MD421, the Neumann is a whole other sound, a world of difference. Only the M88 comes somewhere near the sound of a Neumann, but listen to an M149, this microphone is a thousand times more sensitive, you can hear the crackle of your shoes, really.

You simply can't compare a dynamic mic to a hi end LDC like the Neumann U47. This is not a matter of a couple of dB's or 10%, it's so very different.

Record a different instrument like upright bass, cello, violin, accordeon, bagpipes!!! with a decent dynamic like the MD421 and with a Neumann U67 Jason. This is no comparance, really. Neither is it a matter of taste.
 
You are still missing the point. Look at the specs on any of these mics. Most of the specs are withing 10% of each other. Of course they all sound different, it isn't even subtle, but most of the difference is in that last 5%. It's the same thing with speakers. If you look at the frequency response of most monitors, they are all pretty much the same. There is a big difference in sound from a Behringer Truth to a Genelec 1032 to an Adam. If you look at the graph, they all seem pretty flat with the biggest differences in response being at the extreme ends of the spectrum where there isn't that much going on (compared to the midrange). But they all sound completely different.
 
just my 2 cents...

i use the sm58 (actaully a ripoff, but similiar freq. response) quite a bit...

i record hardcore/punk etc. and it is sometimes best to not hear exactly what the singer sounds like.. (my decent condenser is TOO transparent for both the singers i record currently).

it also seems to me to have a bit of a 'break-up' when screamed into,which i like.

gl
 
Jason, that's why specs don't tell me much, but besides that, I was responding to this:

Originally Posted by jmorris
He compaired a beautiful U47 and sm57. He said "you know, not really such a big difference between the two". Its the very little things you notice. Bottom line, its all just taiste.
Click to expand...

The difference between a U47 and an SM57 is a huge difference and it's not just taste. Of course if you record a violin with an SM57 you'll still hear the violin, but in that case you have a problem with the hearing devices on each side of your head. :D
 
Han said:
Of course if you record a violin with an SM57 you'll still hear the violin, :D
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, if you record a violin with a 57, you hear a fiddle. :)

If the musician is surrounded by bales of hay and guys wearing overalls and cowboy boots, the 57 is the way to go.

If the musician is surrounded by people wearing tuxedos, I would choose the U47.
 
Fiddle! :D

If the musician is surrounded by bales of hay and guys wearing overalls and cowboy boots, the 57 is the way to go.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of a FOH job I did in a horse riding school where there was a big party of Harley Davidson bikers, with rock bands and stiptease dansers.

I wouldn't put a U47 there indeed. :D
 
Farview said:
I think what he was getting at was that we are obsessing over the last 10% of sound quality. Just about any mic will pick up most things, the 'big' differences in most of the mics we use are really just 1db or 2db differences at different points on the spectrum. The mathmatical differences are statisticly very small. So small, in fact, that much of the differences are a matter of interpretation because most of us don't have the facilities to properly test these things.
Click to expand...
Glad you said it 'cause I could'nt get it out! :)
 
Here's another example.
In county music, you mic a banjo with a 57.
In bluegrass, you use a condenser.

The difference between a fiddle and a violin is the mic.
 
A 58 was the first mic that I bought. It can take a hell of a beating and still work, but I hate the way it sounds on most voices.

I have used it to record screaming, heavy metal vocals and it passed with flying colors. Other than that, I don't let it near a mouth.

Get the Audix OM-5.
 
I don't know why I am posting...

It's the elitist thing.

Oddly enough, I have never seen people more obsessed with tone than bluegrass players. When I hear someone say that all you need for a banjo or fiddle is a cassette deck and an SM57, I contrast that with the reality, which is that the banjo player has a 1930's vintage Gibson and the guitar player has a 1934 herringbone D28 played with a genuine tortoiseshell pick and the mandolin player is playing a custom job by John Monteleone that cost $35,000, and that all of the players have striven for technique that will result in the absolute perfect tone in the genre.

Who is the elitist?
 
mandocaster said:
When I hear someone say that all you need for a banjo or fiddle is a cassette deck and an SM57,
Click to expand...
That's not what I said, but you are right about the bluegrass thing.
 
There are many kinds of elitism often displayed on this board.

The difference between a U47 and an SM57 is a huge difference and it's not just taste. Of course if you record a violin with an SM57 you'll still hear the violin, but in that case you have a problem with the hearing devices on each side of your head.
Click to expand...

I would opine that there are many (myself included) who don't care about the difference any more than they care about the supposedly abhorrent recording quality of Damien Rice's "O". It is a bit of engineering myopia to assume that music fans listen for the same things that audiophiles listen for. If the differences were as vast and apparent to Joe Average Six Pack then Panasonic would have been bankrupt decades ago, Gillian Welch would have never sold an album, and Bob Dylan would just be some aging Jewish guy who used to think he was Woody Guthrie (Oh, sorry, no one would have heard of him either).

There is a point where the focus on the equipment becomes simply nonsensical and a matter of interest only to those in the field. Linux discussion boards are a good example of this, so is this board.

*Full Disclosure Edit*
I use a SM58 for my live vocals and an SM57 to mic my acoustic.
 
GoldFalcon said:
<snip>...the supposedly abhorrent recording quality of Damien Rice's "O". <snip>I use a SM58 for my live vocals and an SM57 to mic my acoustic.
Click to expand...

Damien Rice used an SM57 for some of the vocals on "O." He also duct-taped a toilet-paper tube around it and ran it through a Ratt distortion peadal. I think that album is one of the better sounding albums to come out in a long time. And I consider myself an audiophile :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top