A Audio and hi-fi forum. AudioBanter

Go Back   Home » AudioBanter forum » rec.audio » Pro Audio
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New Shure mics vs. old



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 16th 18, 06:55 PM posted to rec.audio.pro
polymod
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 509
Default New Shure mics vs. old



"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message news
In article >, polymod >
wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message news >
><snippage>
>
>The SM-57 and SM-58 have the same capsule inside, but sound totally
>different.
>I find the SM-58 dull because of the foam ball, but the SM-57 is a
>remarkably
>useful mike.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>Scott,
>I know this has been discussed in length, but in your opinion would taking
>the foam out of a 58 make it a 57 (outside of the physical design)?


You have to remove the metal grille too, but yes, if you do this it sounds
pretty much like an SM-57. However, with the grille removed it's very
delicate
and easy to break.

Still, when the rental company gives you a box of SM-58s and you need a mike
for a guitar cabinet, it's a good plan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Thanks Scott.

Poly


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Ads
  #12  
Old May 16th 18, 09:06 PM posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,259
Default New Shure mics vs. old

On 16/05/2018 11:52 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
>>
>> Yeah - for the last 20 years or more they sound like being stung in the
>> ear by a wasp. But not as much as a C1000 !

>
> Don't blame the mike for that. They were designed to be loaded by a
> transformer input. Put them into a modern transformerless preamp and they
> will ring like mad.
>
> Paul Stamler's trick of adding a 600 ohm shunt resistor in a barrel connector
> fixes the issue.
> --scott
>


Yes. I have a bunch of XLRF-XLRM adaptors with the shunt R inside for
that purpose. I use 750R.

Doesn't help a C1000 though .... ;-)

geoff
  #13  
Old May 17th 18, 02:49 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,331
Default New Shure mics vs. old

Nil wrote:
> I have both an old Shure SM-57 and SM-58 left over from my college rock
> band in the '70s. I never liked the sound of them on my voice (they
> sound dull to me),


If anything, they have a significant 2KHz bump on present-day
equipment. That shouldn't be dull.

> but they do have the advantage of being practically
> indestructible. I've heard them used by lots of other people and they
> sound just fine for a stage mike. I've always assumed that those mics
> just don't flatter my particular voice, though I've also heard that
> they were finicky about what preamp they were used with, so maybe I
> just didn't pair them well.
>


Possible. I think the use case in the 1980s when I first heard them
was with a "barrel" transformer adapter. All stuff had 1/4
inputs but not everything had XLR.

> But then I read recently (on the Shure web site, I think) that they had
> actually redesigned the mics a few times over the years (different
> transformers, maybe?) and that new ones don't sound like the old ones.
>


I've not done a careful study but they seem the same to me. I have a
'90s vintage SM57 and all of the sm57/58 sound roughly the same to me.


> Does anyone have more information about that? I'm wondering if it would
> be practical or useful to "upgrade" them or buy new ones, or if it will
> make any difference at all.
>


Buy the new ones, take your time comparing and sell the ones you don't
like on Reverb.

--
Les Cargill
  #14  
Old May 17th 18, 05:58 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil Allison[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 329
Default New Shure mics vs. old

polymod wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey"
>
> The SM-57 and SM-58 have the same capsule inside, but sound totally
> different.
> I find the SM-58 dull because of the foam ball, but the SM-57 is a
> remarkably useful mike.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>
> I know this has been discussed in length, but in your opinion would taking
> the foam out of a 58 make it a 57 (outside of the physical design)?
>
>


** SM57s and 58s, like most dynamic mics, have a close fitting cover over the diaphragm. There is a dome in the centre and a few small holes surrounding it - it protects the diaphragm but has another purpose.

Known as a "resonator cap" it creates a peak in the high frequency response above where it otherwise would be falling away.

The 58 uses a different cap to the 57, boosting response around 10 to 12 kHz by a few dB.

http://recordinghacks.com/2012/11/01...-secrets-sm57/


..... Phil

  #15  
Old May 17th 18, 08:01 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,259
Default New Shure mics vs. old

On 17/05/2018 4:58 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

>
> ** SM57s and 58s, like most dynamic mics, have a close fitting cover over the diaphragm. There is a dome in the centre and a few small holes surrounding it - it protects the diaphragm but has another purpose.
>
> Known as a "resonator cap" it creates a peak in the high frequency response above where it otherwise would be falling away.
>
> The 58 uses a different cap to the 57, boosting response around 10 to 12 kHz by a few dB.
>
> http://recordinghacks.com/2012/11/01...-secrets-sm57/
>
>
> .... Phil
>



A boost sufficient to make the 58 sound particularly nasty of some
sources. But equal just fine on others.

But on a bad source one usually has often gone to something completely
different, rather than trying a 57 instead ...

geoff
  #16  
Old May 17th 18, 11:27 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
polymod
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 509
Default New Shure mics vs. old



"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

polymod wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey"
>
> The SM-57 and SM-58 have the same capsule inside, but sound totally
> different.
> I find the SM-58 dull because of the foam ball, but the SM-57 is a
> remarkably useful mike.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>
> I know this has been discussed in length, but in your opinion would taking
> the foam out of a 58 make it a 57 (outside of the physical design)?
>
>


** SM57s and 58s, like most dynamic mics, have a close fitting cover over
the diaphragm. There is a dome in the centre and a few small holes
surrounding it - it protects the diaphragm but has another purpose.

Known as a "resonator cap" it creates a peak in the high frequency response
above where it otherwise would be falling away.

The 58 uses a different cap to the 57, boosting response around 10 to 12 kHz
by a few dB.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>


Thanks for the info Phil.

Poly


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

  #17  
Old May 17th 18, 12:45 PM posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,380
Default New Shure mics vs. old

geoff > wrote:
>
>Yes. I have a bunch of XLRF-XLRM adaptors with the shunt R inside for
>that purpose. I use 750R.


Close enough.

>Doesn't help a C1000 though .... ;-)


I don't think anything will. I started looking at the C1000 for a mike
modification article but there really wasn't any part of it that was worth
keeping.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shure 556S Mics mcp6453[_2_] Pro Audio 6 May 3rd 11 06:02 AM
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD Fran Guidry Pro Audio 59 July 6th 09 11:30 PM
Shure MX393 Tabletop Mics apa Pro Audio 0 April 6th 09 05:48 PM
Older Shure mics Doug S Pro Audio 20 March 13th 08 12:07 PM
Shure Wireless Mics TS Pro Audio 2 November 17th 03 11:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AudioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.