SM57/58 mic ?

George Wixon · Post by **George Wixon** » 10 Apr 2004 4:31 am

I did a search the other day on vocal mic's used for recording and found a thread where someone had said that the SM57 and 58 were exactly the same mic and the only difference was the wind screen.
If this is true, I know you can purchase just the wire mesh ball, but will it fit the SM57 or is the end of the body of the SM57 different in some way that would prevent you from doing this?
George

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 10 Apr 2004 4:53 am

There is some difference in the windscreen acoustics, but not much, for stage use the 58 is much more roadworthy.

There is a soft windscreen for the 57 to make it a vocal mic, not the wire mesh of the 58.

For recording I would only use the 57 for RnR snare drum, of a specific vocal effect.

Not a recording mic IMHO.
Hope this helps

Erv Niehaus · Post by **Erv Niehaus** » 10 Apr 2004 6:55 am

I think the 58 is designed to be a vocal mike and the 57 is used more to mike an instrument.
Erv

Joe E · Post by **Joe E** » 10 Apr 2004 9:31 am

THe two mics have very simular freq responces but the SM58 uses omni directional capsules and the SM57 used uni- directional capsule's.

Thus for a vocalist that moves around a little as they sing, the SM58 picks up the voice from all over. THier rejection to sounds is very limited to the very back side of the capules. Actually where the body of the mic is at.

The SM57 being uni-directional only picks up sound from the front. THe mode of rejections is very larger once you move past about 45 degrees off axis. THis is not real good for singers that move but an amp that stays stantionary iit better, because it will not feed back or have bleeding occuring form other mics.

In the studio we try to eliminate as much mic bleed as possible so we use SM57's.

Occaisionally if I need to mic a drum set and do not have enough SM57's for each drum,I'll use one SM58 centered between two drums. Because they are omni, it will pick up both.

Hope this helps,

Joe E

Jim Peters · Post by **Jim Peters** » 10 Apr 2004 1:25 pm

a 57 has much more proximity effect, it will really boom if you "eat the mike", some singers I have heard use it to fatten up their own voice, wheras a 58 is more natural and forgiving . I'm referring to live music. Jim Peters

Dyke Corson · Post by **Dyke Corson** » 10 Apr 2004 6:49 pm

The SM 58 is a unidirectional mic also, it's not omni (no offense Joe) check the specs from Shure's site: http://164.109.27.207/microphones/models/sm58.asp

I've always been told the 58s & 57s are real similar, just no pop filter under the grille on a 58 - so 57s were usually used for micing drums, amps, etc. For vocals, try a Peavey PVM22 instead of a SM58 - I think it's a better mic for less money. It seems these days 58s and 57s are "loss leaders" of the music retail industry...

Tim Rowley · Post by **Tim Rowley** » 10 Apr 2004 7:01 pm

Actually the SM-58 is a cardioid mic; it has a "heart-shaped" pickup pattern which, although certainly directional, is NOT as directional as the SM-57 which renders the 58 more useful for vocal applications. On shows, I mic my amp with an SM-57 pointed directly at the sweet spot of the speaker cone, and sing my vocals through the more "forgiving" SM-58.

Tim Rowley

George Wixon · Post by **George Wixon** » 11 Apr 2004 5:32 am

Thanks for your help.
Before spending out another 100 bucks on a mic for vocal use I wanted to see if the 57 could be used by just putting the wind screen on the end of it but it appears that there are also other differences as well.
George

Joe E · Post by **Joe E** » 11 Apr 2004 6:19 am

Thanks Dyke, I stand corrected. Cardiod makes sence on the 58, but the 57 seems much more directional then the 58.

Joe E

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 11 Apr 2004 8:20 am

I have to disagree with David Donald here, even though he's more experienced in these matters.

I'm not a professional recording engineer, but... I use a pair of 57's to record my stereo pedal steel rig. I couldn't be happier with the sound they give me. Studio engineers have tried various other mics on my rig, but to date none of them has sounded as good to my ears as my trusty SM 57's.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax

Larry Lorows · Post by **Larry Lorows** » 11 Apr 2004 9:54 am

I agree with Dyke about the Peavey 22 mike sounding better to my ears. I had one, but it only lasted 6 jobs, so I went back to the 58's.Actually I also have a Shure PG 58, that I can't hear the difference between my SM or my PG 58. I was told in the store that the PG 58 is made in China under Shure's spec's. The PG 58 also have a switch on them, and is about half the price of a SM58.Larry

Joe E · Post by **Joe E** » 11 Apr 2004 10:48 am

(SM57) It is actually the number one recording mic or all times. I guarentee every professional studio has at least one and most have 8-10. It is also the desert island choice for micing speaker cabs. Yes there are other mics that do as good or better in a givin situation, but none that work just about everytime.

Even with a large mic locker, the SM57 comes out for at least one track on most major releases.

Great on Drums and guitars.

Joe

Brad Sarno · Post by **Brad Sarno** » 11 Apr 2004 1:59 pm

Just a side note on the Sm57 and Sm58. If you blow one and order a replacement capsule from Shure. You'll learn that they use the very same capsule. The only difference is in the windscreening, which definitely does effect the sound and performance a bit. Both are cardioid pattern. The 58 has better wind protection for vocals, and it also keeps you a bit farther from the capsule to help prevent siblilance problems and proximity problems. The 57 let's you get real close to the diaphragm. There are many famous vocalists who mastered the art of singing into a 57.

I learned an incredible lesson from engineer/producer David Sinko from the Sound Emporium in Nashville. He toured with that Edgar Meyer/Sam Bush/Josh Bell/Mike Marshall tour running sound. He came to St. Louis where I met him and hung around before the show and talked sound stuff. David produces much or all of Sam Bush's stuff and a whole lot more. He told me there's a secret about the SM58 that most people don't know. He said that for that kind of acoustic show, one trick is to not use your standard AKG and Neumann condensers, but instead use 58's only. He had 4 SM58's on stage. At soundcheck he brought them up equally until they would start to feed back. He'd kill the first ring and then bring them up louder. Then he'd kill the second ring. After killing the 4th ring, they were hot as hell and on the verge of feedback. Then he brought them back down a couple of dB to be safe. Then the players came on and stood about 2-4 feet back from the mics. When Sam would solo, he'd step up to about 1' away. Each guy would do this to control their mix. It was hand's down the best sounding acoustic show I and the house tech had ever heard in this acoustically ideal room, the Sheldon. David said that when you back off a '58, it takes on a real clear and natural quality that you don't really get when you're right on it.

Also, I've got this Gillian Welch/David Rawlings live DVD. They each have a '57 on their guitars, and a '58 on vocals. That's it, no pickups, no condensers. It's incredible sounding. If you ever get a chance to plug a '57 or '58 into a really nice mic-preamp, you may be shocked as to what they can do. I used to think a '57 was only good for snares and guitar cabinets, and that a '58 was merely a utility-grade live vocal mic. Not any more. They are truly the desert island microphones.

Brad Sarno

Stephen Gambrell · Post by **Stephen Gambrell** » 11 Apr 2004 2:07 pm

I've got a ton of mikes, from big ol' Neumann's, Rodes, Audio-Technica, whatever----but if I had to make do with only one mike, it'd be the SM-57, no contest, no questions.[This message was edited by Stephen Gambrell on 11 April 2004 at 03:07 PM.]