|
Post by scumbum on Mar 15, 2017 9:27:31 GMT -6
John, I knew they were nearly identical, but in my experience, they don't sound exactly the same. I figured that some small aspect makes them a little different, and for whatever reason, I've been happy with the 58 for miking cabinets. I don't have a 57 at the moment, so my memory could be off too. Have you tried them side by side and found them to sound exactly the same? SM57 and SM58's DO NOT sound the same . Even with the ball top off . SM57 has more bite , brighter and sibilance . SM58 is smoother . I don;t know what that small aspect that makes them different . But I can't get an SM57 to work on vocals for me . It sounds good , but too pointy and sibilant . SM58 , perfect vocal mic , no issues . I've tried everything even had the SM58 balltop put on the SM57 . This guy talks about the differences .
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 15, 2017 10:06:39 GMT -6
Thanks scumbum, Johneppstein had me thinking I was a fool for a minute.
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Mar 15, 2017 10:31:43 GMT -6
Thanks scumbum, Johneppstein had me thinking I was a fool for a minute. Well he tries.....you can give him an A for effort , but he usually fails . I know that video I posted is long but if you fast foward to 15:50 , he compares the SM57 with its windscreen vs an SM58 and you can hear the extra pointy sibilance . Its subtle but once you start compressing the vocal , then it really stands out .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 13:20:48 GMT -6
They definitely are different mics despite the same cartridge. The SM57 is brighter, as said, from 5kHz upwards, and both have different proximity effect behaviour. Makes quite a difference, and i think it's obvious that the 57 is conceptioned as an instrument mic. Many may like the sound of the 57 with it's extra bite for guitar amps, but i can understand what Martin likes about using 58 in this application. Smoother. IMHO the 58 is more versatile. It was and is a lot more popular around here for a reason, i guess.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 15, 2017 13:32:47 GMT -6
At least you don't have to take out a loan to find out which one you prefer ;-)
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 15, 2017 14:24:48 GMT -6
Having worked for John Nady in the past I would shun anything and everything associated with his name. Well I'm just talking about the rebranded OEM stuff that they sell so the "name" doesn't much matter. If I'm gonna mod a Chinese ribbon mic I'd rather get the cheapest one, since they're rolling off the same factory lines anyway. Well, sometimes it does matter. John Nady negotiates the cheapest possible prices on merchandise, which means that he habitually buys seconds and thirds as long as they're cheap. When you buy a Nady mic you're almost certtainly buying a mic that all the other companies rejected.
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Mar 15, 2017 14:40:53 GMT -6
I just wanted to let you all know that I think those two mics work good. The Samson sounds very good on my voice and I liked it two times over my UMT 70 or my TLM 102. Anyway I decide from case to case. If a cheap microphone works- why not. BTW I am ordering at 3U next week. I say, use it and be happy. If it works, it works... period. Why does there need to be a gear shoot out with every option/opinion. Nobody is ever working under the same conditions with the same voicings and environment. I've got a Warbler or two on my list, but I'm quite content using a cheap(-er) Shure Dynamic. It just works with my voice... go figure.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Mar 15, 2017 14:43:10 GMT -6
I just wanted to let you all know that I think those two mics work good. The Samson sounds very good on my voice and I liked it two times over my UMT 70 or my TLM 102. Anyway I decide from case to case. If a cheap microphone works- why not. BTW I am ordering at 3U next week. I say, use it and be happy. If it works, it works... period. Why does there need to be a gear shoot out with every option/opinion. Nobody is ever working under the same conditions with the same voicings and environment. I've got a Warbler or two on my list, but I'm quite content using a cheap(-er) Shure Dynamic. It just works with my voice... go figure. uhm did I say I want to shoot out it ....no I want to use the mic.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 15, 2017 14:50:53 GMT -6
They definitely are different mics despite the same cartridge. The SM57 is brighter, as said, from 5kHz upwards, and both have different proximity effect behaviour. Makes quite a difference, and i think it's obvious that the 57 is conceptioned as an instrument mic. Many may like the sound of the 57 with it's extra bite for guitar amps, but i can understand what Martin likes about using 58 in this application. Smoother. IMHO the 58 is more versatile. It was and is a lot more popular around here for a reason, i guess. Except that the 57 wasn't. If you know anything about the history of Shure mics you'll know that the Unidyne III/SM57 was originally conceived as a vocal mic. They're ubiquitous as interview mics throughout the '60s and '70s and were more common as vocal mics for bands than the Unisphere I/SM58 throughout that period. I don't see how you could say the proximity behavior is different because they are exactly the same capsule with the exception of the pop filters. The 58 does have slightly different presence behavior due to the thicker foam in the ball assembly. I've serviced hundreds of Shure mics - I used to do surgery on capsules with broken lead-out wires which Shure claimed couldn't be done (they wanted to sell more capsules) until I showed a couple of Shure reps what I was doing, at which point Shure changed the capsule design so there were no longer wire leads connected to lugs on a little terminal board, replaced on the newer capsules by little printed circuit boards set into the sides of the main capsule body which were a good deal more rugged. This was about 1980 or '81, when I was running the service department at Don Wehr's Music City in SF. Now it is possible that they have a selection process where different raw capsules go to different model bodies - I've suspected as much for some time - but they're the same damn capsule. And Shure's QC is so loose that I'd expect not a whole lot of consistancy. Anyway, historically speaking the 58 didn't really surpass the 57 in popularity as a vocal mic until the early to mid '70s, helped by a wilder generation of lead vocalists like Roger Daltry for whom the 57 was simp[ly too fragile.
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Mar 15, 2017 15:06:04 GMT -6
uhm did I say I want to shoot out it ....no I want to use the mic. Nope, you did not say that... Thanks for posting the Samson Mic.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 15, 2017 19:03:17 GMT -6
johneppstein said, "Except that the 57 wasn't. If you know anything about the history of Shure mics you'll know that the Unidyne III/SM57 was originally conceived as a vocal mic. They're ubiquitous as interview mics throughout the '60s and '70s and were more common as vocal mics for bands than the Unisphere I/SM58 throughout that period.
I don't see how you could say the proximity behavior is different because they are exactly the same capsule with the exception of the pop filters. The 58 does have slightly different presence behavior due to the thicker foam in the ball assembly. I've serviced hundreds of Shure mics - I used to do surgery on capsules with broken lead-out wires which Shure claimed couldn't be done (they wanted to sell more capsules) until I showed a couple of Shure reps what I was doing, at which point Shure changed the capsule design so there were no longer wire leads connected to lugs on a little terminal board, replaced on the newer capsules by little printed circuit boards set into the sides of the main capsule body which were a good deal more rugged. This was about 1980 or '81, when I was running the service department at Don Wehr's Music City in SF.
Now it is possible that they have a selection process where different raw capsules go to different model bodies - I've suspected as much for some time - but they're the same damn capsule. And Shure's QC is so loose that I'd expect not a whole lot of consistancy.
Anyway, historically speaking the 58 didn't really surpass the 57 in popularity as a vocal mic until the early to mid '70s, helped by a wilder generation of lead vocalists like Roger Daltry for whom the 57 was simp[ly too fragile."
Well, all that said, they sound different. Put a 57 and a 58 next to each other, sing or play, they sound different. That's all I said, but you implied I was mistaken. If anyone here can't hear the difference, I'd say their in the wrong business, or need their ears checked by a doctor.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 15, 2017 20:56:20 GMT -6
John, I knew they were nearly identical, but in my experience, they don't sound exactly the same. I figured that some small aspect makes them a little different, and for whatever reason, I've been happy with the 58 for miking cabinets. I don't have a 57 at the moment, so my memory could be off too. Have you tried them side by side and found them to sound exactly the same? SM57 and SM58's DO NOT sound the same . Even with the ball top off . SM57 has more bite , brighter and sibilance . SM58 is smoother . I don;t know what that small aspect that makes them different . But I can't get an SM57 to work on vocals for me . It sounds good , but too pointy and sibilant . SM58 , perfect vocal mic , no issues . I've tried everything even had the SM58 balltop put on the SM57 . Well, right now I own around 4-5 58s, 4-5 57s, and 4 56s,(one of which needs a capsule), one 545L and one gold plated Unhisphere I. I've owned lots more in the past and worked for sound reinforcement companies and clubs that had a lot more, in addition to servicing them professionally. A few things I've concluded over the years - There's more difference between capsules of a given model (57 or 58) made in different time periods than between models, on the average. The tone of specific mics will change over time due to use, age, and environmental factors. Shure's quality control is pretty loose - when I worked for Bill Graham's FM Production sound department in the late '70s we sent out bunches of mics for individual testing. The Shures came back with pretty much the worst unit to unit consistancy of any of the "professional" brands of dynamic mics in common use for sound reinforcement at the time. It was actually pretty shocking how rough the responce of those mics was in the critical presence region. We found that we could get 6 dB or better level in a stage monitor system using other mics such as Beyer than with Shure as a result of this inconsistancy. As a result FM used Shure microphones only if required by an artist in their contract. Based on my experience with new vs. old Shure dynamic mics I do not believe that the situation has really improved - I suspect it has actually got worse. Something else to be taken into account is that after a 58 has been used a couple of times the high frequency response starts to deteriorate due to dried spit in the foam in the ball. So if you're comparing as 58 with even moderate use on it to a 57 it might not be too surprising that the 58 is less sibilant and "pointy" sounding. Me, I find that all the common Shure dynamics are a bit "pointy", which is one of the reasons I prefer Beyers. And some Electro-Voice, for that matter. For this reason I find generalizations about differences between 57s and 58s arrived at by comparing only one or two specimens to be somewhat ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 15, 2017 21:10:11 GMT -6
I can appreciate all you're saying John, but you seem bent on diminishing my simple statement. I've got a million miles experience myself, and I'll stand by what I said, I've never heard a 57 or 58 that sound the same. I don't care too much as to why, that's my experience, and my experience is considerable, although nowhere near as comprehensive as yours may be.
Please just stop insulting me. Here's the definition of "ludicrous": "so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous".
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Mar 15, 2017 22:02:14 GMT -6
Those cheap mics are the bomb dot com . . . snap these up, fast! Wot dat? That's a 70s cassette deck microphone with the on/off switch that controls the portable cassette deck. Made in Japan, these little units came included - one per deck. You could buy additional for $5 each.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 15, 2017 22:53:52 GMT -6
the grill IS what makes them sound different. Yes, the grill and the heavier foam, especially when the foam starts to get dirty. Otherwise they're the same mic. You want to make a 57 less "pointy"? Give it a nice foam windscreen.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 15, 2017 23:00:26 GMT -6
I can appreciate all you're saying John, but you seem bent on diminishing my simple statement. I've got a million miles experience myself, and I'll stand by what I said, I've never heard a 57 or 58 that sound the same. I don't care too much as to why, that's my experience, and my experience is considerable, although nowhere near as comprehensive as yours may be. Please just stop insulting me. Here's the definition of "ludicrous": "so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous". I had no intention of insulting you. The remark was not intended to be personal, especially not at you. If you took it that way you have my heartfelt apologies.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 16, 2017 7:55:55 GMT -6
Thanks John, I'm glad I was getting the wrong impression. It's really interesting to hear of all the details you know about these things.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 16, 2017 8:01:41 GMT -6
I know there's an SM57 with an Oliver Archut designed transformer that Zen Pro offers. So far my experience with Archut designs has been they make for a nice improvement, but aren't knockouts.
Meanwhile, back at the Butler ranch, I can't find my SM58. I think I used it for a few songs at a local Yoga event with my wife last November, but it's been a while, so I'm not sure. Man, that's annoying. I usually take extra care with small items at performances, having lost too many over the years. My preference for tracking electric guitars is the Neumann KM84, but unfortunately, I have to borrow it from a friend, and that can get old really fast. The 58 is my second choice, and never let me down.
I can always use an LDC, but would rather not. I may be getting the new Soyuz 0-13 FET SDC soon to try, and that oughta do it. From what I've heard so far, it sounds like the KM84, but with a smiley face, just a little warmer at the more inviting harmonics.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Mar 16, 2017 8:10:29 GMT -6
I know there's an SM57 with an Oliver Archut designed transformer that Zen Pro offers. So far my experience with Archut designs has been they make for a nice improvement, but aren't knockouts. Rob Schnapf says they sound way better. There is a shootout on GS, and I have to agree. Not a huge fan of the SM57, but I've been tempted to get one of these.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 16, 2017 8:12:58 GMT -6
"Not a huge fan of the SM57, but I've been tempted to get one of these".
Me too, but every time I almost pop for one, I think why not put that $200 toward something I really love. Hopefully, the Soyuz 0-13 will complete my "the at home minimalist" mic locker.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Mar 16, 2017 8:17:46 GMT -6
"Not a huge fan of the SM57, but I've been tempted to get one of these". Me too, but every time I almost pop for one, I think why not put that $200 toward something I really love. Hopefully, the Soyuz 0-13 will complete my "the at home minimalist" mic locker. Yeah, I'm thinking along the lines of more expendable if the drummer destroys it, or as a use in a pinch amp mic or as a blend with the fancier ones.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 16, 2017 8:21:40 GMT -6
Where I'm lucky, is that for now, I'm a one man band at home. So I don't need extra preamps and mics for drummers, or sessions with groups. It's basically one track at a time here. Of course I'm interested in eventually having the ability to record a combo live again, but for now, one good mic at a time will do, so I can cherry pick. I may be getting the Stam SA87 soon too.
I've also been lucky enough to have the support of a few of the wonderful musicians here at real gear, cowboycoalminer, M57, henge, kcatthedog, jcoutou and others,
|
|
|
Post by terryrocks on Mar 16, 2017 11:30:59 GMT -6
I recently bought a BIV2 stereo ribbon for $270 shipped. it's certainly good enough for $270. i don't have much experience with more expensive ribbons so I cannot compare.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 16, 2017 12:58:50 GMT -6
On the Shure SM5X series mics the transformer has a definite impact on the sound. There's a mod that (as far as I know) originated in the Bay Area during the '70s where you pull the transformer and run the mic transformerless.It takes a definite hit in level but the sound quality is improved noticeably.I can 't prove it, but the mod might have orighinated because at thet time there were a lot of high impedance only 545s (unidyne III, where the 57/56 type mic started) available really cheap at flea markets arount the Bay Area. Nobody wanted them because they wouldn't work witha low impedance system and Hi-Z PA had finally pretty much died. We'd pull the transformers and convert the screw-on amphenol connectors to XLR with a Switchcraft adapter (Q3M? IIRC). After a bit word of it got out in one of the audio mags (was Tape-Op around then? I don't remember) and the word was that the transformerless mic was a lot cleaner, so some people started doing it to new 57s. A couple or so years later Shure started producing their own transformerless version but fror various reasons it didn't fly and was dropped. Might have been the shorter body, the lighter weight, or the weird fuzzy finish they gave it. Could also be that they changed the VC design a bit to try to boost the output and it didn't help the tone.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 16, 2017 22:02:42 GMT -6
FWIW, I'm VERY critical of the performance of mics in the presence region, as my own voice has a sibilance problem and a natural harshness in the high end that spotlights the deficiencies of most, it not all cheap mics. This is highly exacerbated by dentures. So if a mic is at all hartsh or sibalenmt in that region I'm gonna heart it. I imagine that many of you don't have this problem and therefore are not nearly as critical of cheap mics, many of which are intentionally hyped in that very region, as most inexperienced recordists tend to associate a boost in that region with (phony) detail and (phony) clarity.
Not pointing fingers at anyone.
I'd also like to point out that most ribbons, even many relatively inexpensive ones*, don't have this problem.
* - most Nadys have different problems, related to the fact that most of them are actually rejects. If you can re-ribbon them, or at least retension the ribbon the problems will likely go away.
|
|