If you prefer an SM58 sometimes, in what situations/why?

[RoscoeElegante]

I've got a Neumann TLM103, but gotta say, sometimes the SM57 seems "better." By which I mean it gives me a more solid vocal to work with. The Neumann is beautifully sensitive, but that generally makes my vocals sound worse rather than better. Don't tell me the truth, Gertrude! Make me sound less awful, please!

The Neumann works very well for very low-key, almost conversational singing. But defeats my nefarious purposes otherwise.

Is this ultra or just uber odd? Suggestions to get more out of the Neumann? Other than wanting to sound my best/maximize my options, I hate to see high-quality gear underused.

Thanks!

 

[Old Deaf Roadie]

I can't comment on the Neuman. I can comment that I have used both the SM-57 & -58 in controlled studio environments with passable success. Good mic technique will get you further in most situations, live and studio, than an expensive mic or trendy processor will.

 

[arlum]

I personally still believe the Shure SM57 is the go to dynamic mic for placement in front of amplifier speakers. That's all I use it for and I have three of them. Sometimes I'll combine them with an Audio-Technica AE-5100 condenser mic to get two takes on the same speaker.

​

 

[Heartbreaker_Esq]

I've had similar experiences. I started recording vocals with an SM58, which worked fine, except it was hard to finagle it to get enough level without distorting in the DAW. Eventually I picked up a Rode NT-1, which is a low/middle tier condenser mic. It worked great for acoustic guitar, and like you, it worked well for more delicate vocal parts.

But I don't usually sing like that. I sing hard, and I sing poorly, and I was finding it hard to get usable takes with the condenser. So, I got myself a preamp to fix the level issues with the SM58, and I think I'm getting better results that way.

 

[WireLine]

A lot depends on what a 57 is micing and what a 57 is plugged into. A 57 - Deluxe into a Mackie is usually pretty lame, same 57 same amp into a Neve 1081 is an absolute beast.

I've got 2 of them but have found other things that for me just work better for what I want to achieve in the dynamic mic department...and FWIW taking the ball off a 58 makes it a 57

 

[Andy Bennette]

The thing is, a good condenser mike picks up elements of your voice that you're not used to hearing so it can sound alien. The way to look at it is you can record all those elements - the tone and the harmonics etc - and then when it comes to mixing you have a whole lot to play with. The SM57 might sound great to you with it's limited range but when you come to work on your mix you may find you can't get it to sit right and you can't add what isn't there to begin with.

It takes a lot of adjustment to record your own vocals, hearing them through a good studio mic, but as long as you have good technique moving back and forward depending on the volume you're singing, you end up with something more valuable to work with.

 

[THX1139]

Southside Johnny used 57s for live vocals if I recall correctly. As mentioned above mic technique is king/queen. 58 has ball shaped foam wind screen under wire with air space around mic diaphragm. 57 has a much closer screen allowing for a bigger proximity effect (increase in bass) which allows the singer to vary mic frequency output on a 57 pretty dramatically depending on where they place the mic in relation to their pie hole. Same applies to mic placement in front of speakers to a degree.

 

[getbent]

when its not windy.

 

[RoscoeElegante]

Sorry, folks! I misspoke in my prior thread/post and identified the SM58 I meant as a 57. I'm referring to the SM58 here. Apologies....

 

[Dismalhead]

I've got an SM58 and an SM57, both of which I use to record. I've had SM57s for decades and I often use one for vocals too because it seems to block out background and side noise better than the SM58. Seriously though, I believe they're the same mic with just a different polar pattern and the difference is probably just in my head and not in my ears.

Guitarist tip - buy an SM57 and a cable and throw it in your gig bag. You never know when you're going to need it. I bought one in the early '90s and I have used the heck out of it.

 

[getbent]

I think the 58 is 'the' sound for a lot of people. For me, fo sho. I hain't never had a neumann and I know a ton of people have made good records with 58's...

I kind of think tom petty used 58's a lot.

 

[arlum]

The Shure SM series. Talk about standing the test of time. I have grandchildren using these microphones.

 

[loudboy]

Southside Johnny used 57s for live vocals if I recall correctly.

As did Tom Petty and Bruce Springsteen for decades, eventuall switching over to Audix, IIRC. There are a ton of live recordings of them that sound terrific.

Also, Gillian Welch and David Rawlings use 57s and 58s exclusively live for their guitars and vocals, no pickups. Look up their live BBC show and see if you can find any fault with their sound.

I will use a Beta 58 occasionally on a male active rock singer/screamer. Works great.

 

[Monoprice99]

I use one of the following, SM57/58/Model 55 Unidyne type dynamic mics. Mostly because I didn't want to run phantom power that a condenser mic requires. There are also DI boxes that are passive that avoid the phantom power that condenser mics require. Passive DI boxes are hum eliminators & input attenuator(s) mostly. And they also have a ground lift feature. I figured the passive DI box is made specifically for a dynamic mic only, using phantom power with the dynamic mic might damage the mic due to electrical imbalances. I tend to avoid gear that requires additional electricity for power when I can. Simplifies the entire process for my own personal recording & performances. Whether a professional AV type would do it differently is something I don't have the expertise to question their methods.

 

[loudboy]

I use one of the following, SM57/58/Model 55 Unidyne type dynamic mics. Mostly because I didn't want to run phantom power that a condenser mic requires. There are also DI boxes that are passive that avoid the phantom power that condenser mics require. Passive DI boxes are hum eliminators & input attenuator(s) mostly. And they also have a ground lift feature. I figured the passive DI box is made specifically for a dynamic mic only, using phantom power with the dynamic mic might damage the mic due to electrical imbalances. I tend to avoid gear that requires additional electricity for power when I can. Simplifies the entire process for my own personal recording & performances. Whether a professional AV type would do it differently is something I don't have the expertise to question their methods.

The only mics that will be damaged by phantom power are some vintage ribbons.

Not sure what you mean by using DI boxes for microphones, especially condensers. They don't need DIs.

 

[Ben Harmless]

I prefer the SM58 in one and a half scenarios - but they span a lot of my use of microphones.

The first one is live. I bring a '58 with me for the sake of hygiene and so that the sound person doesn't have to change a thing.

The second is actually what @RoscoeElegante mentions - it works better for my vocals in some situations than much fancier mics. This is the ".5" scenario, because the mic that I actually lean toward is a Shure 565 - a vintage, American-made one that I got at a flea market for $5. We did a blind shootout in a studio once, and on my voice, that mic beat a handful of others - including some fancy U87 clone.

The difference between the 565 and the '58 has been discussed, and consensus is that it sounds a little clearer in the low mids - which is my observation as well. This has been chalked up to a different transformer than the '58 uses, as well as a possibly slightly higher rolloff. The good news is that Shure still makes that 565!

I keep mine at home though. It's a real '58 that goes with me to shows. I have a gold ball on it I got from Amazon - all my junk be custom.

 

[philosofriend]

The SM58 has a mild presence boost that helps insure audibility and comprehension of the words (or guitar notes). This is a good quality in live music, especially important when performing on someone else's who-knows-how-good-it-is PA system.

Who was it who laughingly said that the engineers record his rock vocals on a fancy expensive mike, then in the mix down they talk with each other about how to make it sound like it was recorded with a SM58.

 

[Monoprice99]

The only mics that will be damaged by phantom power are some vintage ribbons.

Not sure what you mean by using DI boxes for microphones, especially condensers. They don't need DIs.

"Need" is relative, but from a simple Google search. I don't know what anyone intends to try to do with anything, what they have or don't to match equipment plugs from device to device.

How to use a DI box with a microphone:

1. 1. Connect the microphone:
   Connect the microphone to the DI box using an XLR cable.
2. 2. Connect the DI box output:
   Connect the DI box's balanced XLR output to the microphone input of your mixing console or audio interface.
3. 3. Engage phantom power (if needed):
   If you are using a condenser microphone, ensure that phantom power is enabled on the corresponding channel of your mixer or audio interface.
4. 4. Adjust levels:
   Set the input gain on your mixer or audio interface to achieve a suitable signal level.
5. 5. Optional through connection:
   If you need to send the signal to another device (e.g., an amplifier), use the DI box's "through" or "link" output (usually a 1/4" jack) to connect to the other device.
   
   
   When to use a DI box with a microphone:
   • Long cable runs:
     .
   If a microphone signal needs to travel a long distance to a mixing console or audio interface, a DI box can help maintain signal integrity by converting it to a balanced signal, which is less susceptible to noise and interference over long distances.
   
   • 
     
   • No microphone preamp:
     .
   If you don't have a microphone preamp available (e.g., on a simple mixer or audio interface) and need to connect a microphone, a DI box can be used to adapt the microphone's output to a suitable input on the device.
   
   • 
     
   • Signal splitting:
     .
   DI boxes can also be used to split a microphone signal, sending one output to a mixing console and another to an amplifier or other device, allowing for flexible routing and monitoring.
   
   • 
     
   • Clean signal for reamping:
     .
   In recording, a DI box can provide a clean, direct signal from a microphone that can be used later for reamping through a guitar amplifier or effects, preserving the original recording while allowing for tonal changes during mixing.
   
   • 
     
   • Using with a microphone preamp as part of an effects loop:
     .
   A DI box can be used to connect a microphone to a microphone preamp (or a two-channel preamp for stereo signals) to create an effects loop for processing or adding analog character to individual tracks.
   

 

[Monoprice99]

Sorry, folks! I misspoke in my prior thread/post and identified the SM58 I meant as a 57. I'm referring to the SM58 here. Apologies....

SM57 & SM58, even the Model 55SH uses the same cartridge. The difference between then 57 & 58 is the pop/wind filter & you can buy the "clown nose" for a 57 that makes it the 58.

Shure SM57 vs SM58; Read before you Decide! - THR

Last updated on December 30th, 2023 at 02:49 pmBoth the Shure SM57 and the SM58 are two of the most used and best-know microphones out there. From studios to live performances all over the world, they tend to be the go-to mics. However, we all know that they are extremely similar microphones, in...

thraudio.com

 

[arlum]

SM57's are revered for the way they capture the top end. They add the sparkle often lost when micing guitar cabs. In truth .... they're at their best when combined with a second microphone with a flat response. The favored 2nd mike would usually be a Ribbon mic but they can get darned expensive. I've found, because I can't afford ribbon mics, that a condenser mic with a noted flat response and a lower price tag will work almost as well. No. It's not the same but maybe delivers 80% of the desired tonality for a third of the price. Unless you're rich corner cutting is a part of mic selection.