• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

SM57 vs SM58 for vocals....

SM57 or SM58 for vocals?

  • SM57

    Votes: 25 11.0%

  • SM58

    Votes: 162 71.1%

  • Carrots

    Votes: 41 18.0%
  • Total voters
    228
#101
Droopy_TX said:
As I mentioned, I use the SM57 with its foam filter for my live mic all the time. I sing really close to the mic (like, touching the filter). I have to say, I don't really any issues with plosives. I know all dynamic mics have the proximity effect. I don't know if I subconsciously back-off, or if the filter is fairly effective in dispersing the pressure.
Click to expand...
Don’t doubt you, but that’s not the usual. So I wouldn’t recommend the OP select a mic based on your experience.
 
#105
LBS-bass said:
That sounds like a nightmarish story for him. But, in his defense, I've almost never seen high-quality stage mics with built-in switches and I would probably also never think to look for one in that situation.

I have a switching mic cable in my studio. I have it as insurance against accidentally opening up a channel to a live mic while my monitors are still on. So there's a little checklist that I go through before I open up any mic inputs which involves double checking the monitors, double checking that all my other channels are inactive, and then switching the mic cable on. It's always switched off after use.

A switch is fine if it's user installed and user controlled and the user knows it's there, what it does, and how to use it. I'd never put a mic with a switch in front of a singer unless it was their own mic and they use it frequently. It's just asking for trouble.
Click to expand...
As an experienced sound tech, I always tell everybody on stage “assume your mic is on at all times and act accordingly”. ...even if it isn’t :).
PS - Will never owned a switched mic, ever. I have a few similar tales from the early days when switches were more popular.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bermuda Ron and LBS-bass
#106
TomB said:
As an experienced sound tech, I always tell everybody on stage “assume your mic is on at all times and act accordingly”. ...even if it isn’t :).
PS - Will never owned a switched mic, ever. I have a few similar tales from the early days when switches were more popular.
Click to expand...
I never have. Closest thing to that is the cable I bought. The reason I wanted the switch originally was so that I could leave the mic plugged into input 1 without ever being tempted to touch the input level at the interface, for whatever reason. I do a lot of harmony singing which are short bursts and then you want to listen back, I was finding myself tempted to turn down at the input and turn the monitors on for that, which makes it hard to keep input levels 100% consistent, so I thought I'd get the switch. But nowadays my workflow has evolved and I hardly ever turn the monitors on at all unless I'm finished with my takes.
 
#108
They both work.

58 is "better" for vocals, in a few technical ways, but only by a very little.

I pretty much use them interchangeably, but I will put the 58s in vocal positions first, if I have them available...for no reason other than theory. In practicality, no difference for live musical use.

Pull the windscreen off a 58, and you have a 57, albeit with less protection. The windscreen has a slight effect on top end, and it limits how close you can place the mic to anything else, limiting how much proximity effect you can use. Those are the only practical differences between the two...and you'd only hear them in a vacuum...i.e. a recording studio...in which you have "better" mikes anyhow, and probably won't be using Shure 57s and 58s. Point being, in the real world, on a musical stage, the 57 and 58 are the same.

For speaking, the 58 is slightly better, and yes, you might actually be able to tell in that case. But not in a musical group.
 
Last edited:
#110
Wasnex said:
In my previous post I showed the frequency response of each mic which is far from identical...so no I am not saying they are the same mic or that they perform the same.

However, the polar response at the tested frequencies appears to be essentially identical. If there is significant variation in the polar response between these two mics, it is at frequencies that were not tested.

I make no other claims, and if you prefer to sing into an SM57 with a windscreen I have no argument with your choice. Hopefully your choice is based on the mic's performance on a bandstand working with an actual band, rather than singing by yourself through headphones, which is how many vocalists choose a mic.

I don't own any SM57s, and I don't plan to use my SM58s unless somebody really special comes along and throws a tantrum. I have several vocal mics that I consider way better, but I totally understand that someone who has been singing on a SM57 or SM58 for decades will struggle with a modern hyper-card or super-card mic, because it's necessary to drastically modify your mic technique...and that's exactly why I keep SM58s on hand.
Click to expand...

Gotcha.

For whatever reasons, there are marked differences when using the 58 versus the 57 despite the schematics. The cage around the 57 versus the ball end wind screen of the 58 may explain some of it. There seem to be differences in side and back rejection as well. Also, how you attach the windscreen to the 57 can drastically alter proximity effect. I know that on many voices (like mine) the 58 brings out the worst in the mid/low mid aspects of my voice, whereas the 57 does not; indeed, the 57 has the opposite effect and makes my voice sound brighter and clearer, less mud. As you said, these observations are not made with brief tests through headphones, but on sound stages over the years. I also own about a dozen other dynamic and condenser mics for stage and studio, so you do have to shop around and find what you like. Shure's Beta line was like a breath of fresh air IMHO. I own two of each and use 58a and 57a way more than their predecessors. The only sound techs who complain about the Betas are so hooked on the standard versions they hate having to adjust. That's another issue altogether, sticking with what you know fits your voice despite what a sound tech, who doesn't know you or what your desire is for your voice, thinks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wasnex
#111
Between the two I would use a 58 for live vocals every time. That said do prefer the Sennheiser E835 for my voice.
And yes Flats for metal are awesome! After playing in a metal band for 20 years I went flats. I changed them out often to keep some of the brightness they had when new but they sounded great. American P Bass + 77 flats and a Mesa boogie stack. I got lots of compliments on my sound.
 
#115

I have a Unidyne III which I guess is like the forefather of the SM57. According to this video, it has slightly less low-end response and an increased high end. They have very similar EQ curves but the differences are worth noting. Allegedly every mic at Woodstock was a Unidyne III but I wasn't there so take that for what it's worth.
 
#120
Hundred proof said:
I like the super 55 ... it’s a beta 58 in an old school 55 shell
Click to expand...
I'd be interested in hearing that. I kinda despise the 55s because they're overused in photos (almost every photo used to advertise anything about singing shows a 55), everyone thinks they look cool when (imo) they are just waaaaay overdone to the point of cliche, and they sound awful unless you're going for a really retro, distorted sound.

I know several vocalists here who bought them because they 'look cool' and used them a handful of times before sending them off to the land of used gear. But for those who really want the look, this "super" one could do the trick. The look would still totally fit an oldies-style act.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back