Differences between Shure SM57 & 58 and more

Bob Womack · #1 07-31-2008, 05:16 AM

Hi! This week in Shure Notes, the e-newsletter of Shure Brothers, they've got three great articles on the SM57 & SM58. People are always asking, "What is the difference between them?" "How do you clean them?" "Can they really be used for everything?"

Find your answers in three reports, HERE, HERE, and HERE . In that last report, just for fun, a guy records an entire song with nothing but SM57s - and no outboard EQ. It's interesting reading and listening. Check out the author's myspace (link at bottom of page).

Enjoy!

Bob

valleyguy · #2 07-31-2008, 03:23 PM

Some great reading Bob, thanks. I really like using the SM58 for vocals.

I had always heard that the only difference between the two was the windscreen, and lo and behold, that is the case. I always thought it was some old recording engineer's fable. Nice to know it's true. Someone once told me to get the sound of a 57 from a 58, just unscreww the windscreen from the 58. I tried it and was never able to hear a difference. Seems the only benefit of the windscreen is to cut down on wind noise and pops, which is critical on vocals.

It's also amazing how you can fondle that mic, hold the screen, and generally massage it in your hands and there is NO noise.

FingerPlucked · #3 07-31-2008, 03:49 PM

I used to think the only difference was in the windscreen. I've used SM58's for 30 some years and SM57's for almost as long. Based on my own experience, I thought they were the same mic, but one had a ball, the other didn't.

Then I read somewhere (probably on a forum) about other differences and how the 57 had a frequency response tailored to instruments while the 58 was designed for vocals, and that the polar patterns were different as well.

I'm glad you posted this info. It's good to see that my original "hunch" was right.

BTW, I know a guy who's recording vocals in his home studio with the 58 after removing the foam inside the grill. According to him, it sounds better than any condenser he's ever used.

valleyguy · #4 08-01-2008, 02:14 PM

I've unscrewed the screen and completely removed it a couple of times to record. Didn't notice that much of a difference, it certainly wasn't the sound of a condenser.

FingerPlucked · #5 08-01-2008, 02:51 PM

I had my doubts too. Then again, I've heard some of the things he's recorded, and wasn't inclined to argue with him.

mishmannah · #6 08-01-2008, 04:16 PM

Bob,

Thanks for the deeply fascinating articles provided; I have been looking for a definitive article on the Shure mics since I bought one last year. I mainly relied on user reviews.

I have a '57 and have been frustrated with the lack of sparkle when recording an acoustic guitar & vocals. Listening to the endorser's MP3 clip made me rethink my setup, including considering getting a new cable and experimenting with mic placement. Although I have other mics, I want to get the best out of my Shure sm57.

Compared to a condenser, I'd say that MP3 still lacks top end sparkle. What the MP3 clip does have is plenty of body & compression (assuming there was no FX tweaks) and certainly sounds a little vintage; almost as if it was recorded on vinyl.

Thanks again, I spent a long time reading these articles.

Chicago Sandy · #7 08-02-2008, 03:59 PM

I like using the SM 57 for guitar and Beta 58A for vocals. Just bought an M-Audio USB large diaphragm condenser to record vocals. FWIW, one of my bandmates, Katie, packs a 57 and a foam windscreen for her own vocals wherever we play. (I like my 58A's proximity-effect bass-boost, but both she and Susan have darker coloration to their voices than I do).