beta 58 proximity effect

[butchblack]

Hi

Is it me or have others found the beta 58 to be a bit shrill when very close (lips brushing the windscreen). I found that I liked the sound much better if I were 3-4 inches away from the mike, but in a live situation that wasn't always possible.

 

[JimmyM]

i certainly have, butch. when soundmen give me a beta, i ask if they have a regular 58. otoh, i work with a couple insane treble freaks whom you can't put enough treble on their voices in the monitors, so they love it. but to me it sounds papery.

 

[saustindavis]

Isn't the proximity effect an increase of bass as it gets closer? I think the SM58 was WAY too boomy, especially if you were within an inch. I've never noticed a treble increase, but to each his own.

 

[projectMalamute]

The Beta 58 is a fairly bright mic. It has nothing to do with proximity effect.

 

[JimmyM]

well when you get up on it, it does amplify highs quite a bit louder and more obnoxiously than when you back off.

 

[semiprohooker]

Beta 58's are definitely a bright mic and in some cases can almost come across as shrill. However, for my deep, dark "voice" having that extra little bit of brightness helps clear up my voice a ton.

 

[TimmyP]

I prefer mics that have a bit less proximity effect, such as the OM7 and N/D767a. For someone with a "dark" voice, I'd try the 767a, as it's a little stronger in the mids.

 

[T-Bird]

Hi.

Is this a personal observation while singing into the said mic, or something that was discovered when You recorded some tunes and played them back?

Many moons ago we tested quite a bit of mics for our own recording purposes and found out that the difference between the percieved direct and recorded tone was like a night and day in some cases. The monitoring played a big part in that experiment obviously, but there was huge differences between different mics, voices and singing techniques as well (just as there should be).

That said, 58 Beta is IME a more balanced mic than the regular 58, so to some it may sound bright since the 58's top end does leave quite a bit to be desired. For female vocals for example.

Regards
Sam

 

[Keithwah]

As a professional audio operator, designer and engineer, and musician for over 35 years, the Electro Voice N/D 767 has repeatedly proven itself for the best gain before feedback characteristics and punch over the Beta and any other handheld vocalist mic on the market. The Audix OM7 is an excellent mic as well. The N/D 767 will outperform the Audix in loud stage situations,, but if the stage volume levels aren't too insane, it does work very well.

If you are serious about singing, buy an N/D 767 and keep it on you for all gigs. And firmly insist that house soundmen remove the old beat up skank smelling (from the booze of course) '58 out and plug yours in.

Any soundman worth his salt recognizes EV mics as quality sounding mics, but more importantly have him prove he can make his '58 or Beta58 as loud as your N/D 767. Can't be done.

 

[testing1two]

I have found that Beta 58s make lesser PA/monitor systems sound better and better PA/monitor systems sound lesser.

Let's be clear: proximity effect really only boosts the low end because of an increase in air pressure within the mic housing which causes the capsule to move more. The effect in beta58s is somewhat unique because beta 58s are nowhere near flat in terms of frequency response. There are actually two distinct boosts that most folks don't realize. the first is an upper mid boost between 3-4kHz and then it slopes back down (typical in most live vocal mics). The second is a broad rise from 6-10kHz followed by a steep roll-off between 10-16kHz. Here's what makes this interesting: when proximity effect boosts the low end, it creates a dip in the mids which exaggerates the presence boosts. This IMO is why the mic tends to sound papery and shrill through a decent PA.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[Munjibunga]

I used a Beta 87C in my classic rock band, now I use a Beta 58A in my trio. The 58A works fine for me - I need a brighter mic because I have a baritone voice. It's a good idea to audition a bunch of mics to see what works best with your voice. Check different manufacturers. I usually stick with Shure for the reliability factor. I have a KSM9 (Shure's answer to the venerable Neumann KMS 105), and prefer it by far over the Neumann, which I sold to buy the KSM9. By the way, Northern Sound and Light sells Shure microphones for far less than anyone else. You have to call them on the phone to get the price.

 

[testing1two]

I used a Beta 87C in my classic rock band, now I use a Beta 58A in my trio. The 58A works fine for me - I need a brighter mic because I have a baritone voice. It's a good idea to audition a bunch of mics to see what works best with your voice. Check different manufacturers. I usually stick with Shure for the reliability factor. I have a KSM9 (Shure's answer to the venerable Neumann KMS 105), and prefer it by far over the Neumann, which I sold to buy the KSM9. By the way, Northern Sound and Light sells Shure microphones for far less than anyone else. You have to call them on the phone to get the price.

KSM9 is an excellent condenser. Beta 58s aren't for me but I still have one in my mic locker for the voice that needs it. Right now I'm on the Heil PR35 dynamic bandwagon and loving it.

 

[JimmyM]

pr35 rocks hard. i almost got one, but you have to be so dead-on the ball that i decided i could never use it. that's a major reason why i stick to the 58. i always run up to the mic the exact second i'm about to sing, and i tend to get a little animated with the head when i sing as well. so a mic that'll still pick up my voice when i get askew is needed. plus it just works well with my voice for some reason. hey, good enough for 90% of the world's greatest singers, good enough for me.

edit: yes, i pulled that 90% stat out of my ass. i don't think it's all that inaccurate. so shut up.

 

[testing1two]

pr35 rocks hard. i almost got one, but you have to be so dead-on the ball that i decided i could never use it. that's a major reason why i stick to the 58. i always run up to the mic the exact second i'm about to sing, and i tend to get a little animated with the head when i sing as well. so a mic that'll still pick up my voice when i get askew is needed. plus it just works well with my voice for some reason. hey, good enough for 90% of the world's greatest singers, good enough for me.

edit: yes, i pulled that 90% stat out of my ass. i don't think it's all that inaccurate. so shut up.

I don't particularly love SM58s but I know them so well that I'm always happy to see them.

And there's a certain peace of mind because the 58 is readily available in virtually every music market on the planet you can expect to consistently get the sound you're familiar & comfortable with.

On a separate note loosely relating to the original post, the interesting thing about the Heil PR35 is that it has so much less proximity effect than any other vocal mic I've used. Most mics "blossom" between 2 1/2" to where your lip hits the grill but the PR35 seems so consistent (i.e. forgiving) in that critical range. But as Jimmy said, beyond 3 or 4" and you're out of the sweet spot (insert dirty joke here).

 

[T-Bird]

Hi.

I don't particularly love SM58s but I know them so well that I'm always happy to see them.

And there's a certain peace of mind because the 58 is readily available in virtually every music market on the planet you can expect to consistently get the sound you're familiar & comfortable with.

^This.

Now I'm not a touring pro on either side of the desk, and never will, but for me those statements are the sole reasons that I personally prefer SM58 over any other mic on small to medium scale live pop/rock oriented music.

Regards
Sam

 

[Vinny D]

I never have any issues or complaints about my Beta 58 mic's.
It's all about EQ, just like with any other mic.

 

[spigmu]

I also find that some soundpeople dial in their usual vocal eq no matter what the mic. A Beta 58 sometimes sounds pretty good live but definitely not after getting an SM58 eq.

 

[butchblack]

Hi.

Is this a personal observation while singing into the said mic, or something that was discovered when You recorded some tunes and played them back?

Many moons ago we tested quite a bit of mics for our own recording purposes and found out that the difference between the percieved direct and recorded tone was like a night and day in some cases. The monitoring played a big part in that experiment obviously, but there was huge differences between different mics, voices and singing techniques as well (just as there should be).

That said, 58 Beta is IME a more balanced mic than the regular 58, so to some it may sound bright since the 58's top end does leave quite a bit to be desired. For female vocals for example.

Regards
Sam

This was a combination of obervation while singing and listening to recordings made with a Tascam handheld recorder. IMHO I sounded better when I could stay a couple of inches away from the mike

 

[Roadman]

"This was a combination of obervation"

That's the problem, you forgot to turn off your Desser.

Sorry bro, couldn't resist.

 

[WalterBush]

Depends on the voice, IME. I don't care for most of Shure's product line, but I wouldn't have described the Beta 58 as shrill...although I've run into plenty of monitor systems with cheap piezo horns that made everything, including basses with the tone knob rolled back, sound like they had way too much treble. For some reason, very few PA systems translated that trebly edge to the FOH. Must be something about monitor designers, maybe.

I had good results using a Beta 58 with more than one singer, including loud male rock vocalists and female pop singers. I didn't notice them being overly trebly, except in the monitors where they generated more feedback than I thought they should.