SM 58 sans ball?

[Dan]

I have read in various posts people voicing the opinion that an SM 58
is "Exactly Like" or "Very Close" to an SM 57 if you unscrew the ball
from the top. I have also read that the SM 58 has a response that is
peaky around 6k to help a vocal punch through live mixes, whereas the
SM 57 lacks this peak, and is thus more favored for studio use. Does
removing the ball really make the 58 respond like the 57? On the
surface this wouldn't seem to make sense, as the ball filter, if
anything, would likely attenuate high end...or so it seems to me.
Anybody have hard data about this?

d

[Garthrr]

In article >,
(Dan) writes:

>I have read in various posts people voicing the opinion that an SM 58
>is "Exactly Like" or "Very Close" to an SM 57 if you unscrew the ball
>from the top. I have also read that the SM 58 has a response that is
>peaky around 6k to help a vocal punch through live mixes, whereas the
>SM 57 lacks this peak, and is thus more favored for studio use. Does
>removing the ball really make the 58 respond like the 57? On the
>surface this wouldn't seem to make sense, as the ball filter, if
>anything, would likely attenuate high end...or so it seems to me.
>Anybody have hard data about this?
>
>d

I believe the SM58 peak is closer to 2kHz than 6k. The 57 has a peak as well
and I think I remember it being at around 5kHz. Others may know better but I
think the ball windsceen on the SM58 creates it's presence peak by virtue of
the size and porosity of the ball enclosure.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

[Arny Krueger]

"Dan" > wrote in message
om

> I have read in various posts people voicing the opinion that an SM 58
> is "Exactly Like" or "Very Close" to an SM 57 if you unscrew the ball
> from the top.

> I have also read that the SM 58 has a response that is
> peaky around 6k to help a vocal punch through live mixes, whereas the
> SM 57 lacks this peak, and is thus more favored for studio use.

They both have peaks in the upper midrange, neither is anything like flat.

> Does removing the ball really make the 58 respond like the 57? On the
> surface this wouldn't seem to make sense, as the ball filter, if
> anything, would likely attenuate high end...or so it seems to me.
> Anybody have hard data about this?

Shure has what they claim is relevant hard data - it's posted at

http://www.shure.com/images/response/fsm57_large.gif

and

http://www.shure.com/images/response/fsm58_large.gif

[Scott Dorsey]

Dan > wrote:
>I have read in various posts people voicing the opinion that an SM 58
>is "Exactly Like" or "Very Close" to an SM 57 if you unscrew the ball
>from the top.

Yes, it has pretty much the same capsule.

>I have also read that the SM 58 has a response that is
>peaky around 6k to help a vocal punch through live mixes, whereas the
>SM 57 lacks this peak, and is thus more favored for studio use.

No, they are both very peaky around 6 KC or so. Look at the charts in
the book and you will see a substantial presence peak on both of them.
But what you will also see is that the response on the 58 drops off like
a rock above the presence peak, while the response on the 57 continues
around a bit.

>Does
>removing the ball really make the 58 respond like the 57? On the
>surface this wouldn't seem to make sense, as the ball filter, if
>anything, would likely attenuate high end...or so it seems to me.
>Anybody have hard data about this?

Right. The difference between the two is mostly that the 58 has no
high end to speak of.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Steve Scott]

says...
> I have read in various posts people voicing the opinion that an SM 58
> is "Exactly Like" or "Very Close" to an SM 57 if you unscrew the ball
> from the top. I have also read that the SM 58 has a response that is
> peaky around 6k to help a vocal punch through live mixes, whereas the
> SM 57 lacks this peak, and is thus more favored for studio use. Does
> removing the ball really make the 58 respond like the 57? On the
> surface this wouldn't seem to make sense, as the ball filter, if
> anything, would likely attenuate high end...or so it seems to me.
> Anybody have hard data about this?

From Shure:
http://tinyurl.com/vd8l

and this (sorry can't link, it's a popup, look at "SM57 vs SM58" on
Shure database):

(begin quote)

SM57 vs SM58 - proximity effect

Question
---- 09/23/2001 09:37 AM -----------------------------------------
----
Hi Why does the 57 sound so much different than the 58? I know the grill
affects the sound and so does porting and microphone body shape and size.
The specs say the 57 goes a bit lower yet many people feel the 58 is
bassier sounding. I'm guessing their perception of bass is actually lower
mids but I can't find any frequency graphs on your site to confirm this.
I would have expected the 57 to sound bassier because a greater proximity
effect is possible since you can get closer to the cartridge but I guess
many people's sense of bass is not really low frequency extension.

---- 09/23/2001 09:49 AM ----------------------------------------------
the graphs I viewed in PDF format doen't seem to correspond with what I
hear. Do these mics have different proximty effect characteristics?

Answer
At 09/24/2001 08:00 AM we wrote - The SM58 and the SM57 share the
same mic element, the Unidyne III. The only difference between the these
two models is the grill design.

The grill design does affect the high frequency response, particularly
above 8,000 Hz.

The SM57 grill design allows more proximity effect because the mic
diaphragm can be placed closer to the sound source. Proximity effect
increases each time the distance from the mic to the source is halved.
When a mic is placed very close, it is quite easy to halve the distance:
1 inch to 1/2 inch; 1/2 inch to 1/4 inch; etc. Remove the ball grill from
the SM58 and it will be more similar to the SM57 in its low frequency
response.

Any other differences you hear between the SM57 and SM58 are likely to be
subjective (psycho-acoustic) or due to slight manufacturing differences
due to part tolerance.

(end of quote)

Steve

[Dan]

Thanks for the replies. Everything folks are saying, combined with the
material quoted, seems to indicate that the SM 58 sans ball should
give a close approximation of the 57, with the one standout item from
Steve's link, which yielded the following:
-- a different resonator/grille assembly design of the SM57 is
responsible for its slightly higher output above 5 kHz.--
So there does seem to be a relevant difference in construction other
than the ball which affects the response. So I wonder how much or how
little difference. Aside from pure curiosity, I have a 58, but not a
57, and money has been tight enough lately to become the mother of
invention.

d


Steve Scott > wrote in message >...
> says...
> > I have read in various posts people voicing the opinion that an SM 58
> > is "Exactly Like" or "Very Close" to an SM 57 if you unscrew the ball
> > from the top. I have also read that the SM 58 has a response that is
> > peaky around 6k to help a vocal punch through live mixes, whereas the
> > SM 57 lacks this peak, and is thus more favored for studio use. Does
> > removing the ball really make the 58 respond like the 57? On the
> > surface this wouldn't seem to make sense, as the ball filter, if
> > anything, would likely attenuate high end...or so it seems to me.
> > Anybody have hard data about this?
>
> From Shure:
> http://tinyurl.com/vd8l
>
> and this (sorry can't link, it's a popup, look at "SM57 vs SM58" on
> Shure database):
>
> (begin quote)
>
> SM57 vs SM58 - proximity effect
>
> Question
> ---- 09/23/2001 09:37 AM -----------------------------------------
> ----
> Hi Why does the 57 sound so much different than the 58? I know the grill
> affects the sound and so does porting and microphone body shape and size.
> The specs say the 57 goes a bit lower yet many people feel the 58 is
> bassier sounding. I'm guessing their perception of bass is actually lower
> mids but I can't find any frequency graphs on your site to confirm this.
> I would have expected the 57 to sound bassier because a greater proximity
> effect is possible since you can get closer to the cartridge but I guess
> many people's sense of bass is not really low frequency extension.
>
> ---- 09/23/2001 09:49 AM ----------------------------------------------
> the graphs I viewed in PDF format doen't seem to correspond with what I
> hear. Do these mics have different proximty effect characteristics?
>
> Answer
> At 09/24/2001 08:00 AM we wrote - The SM58 and the SM57 share the
> same mic element, the Unidyne III. The only difference between the these
> two models is the grill design.
>
> The grill design does affect the high frequency response, particularly
> above 8,000 Hz.
>
> The SM57 grill design allows more proximity effect because the mic
> diaphragm can be placed closer to the sound source. Proximity effect
> increases each time the distance from the mic to the source is halved.
> When a mic is placed very close, it is quite easy to halve the distance:
> 1 inch to 1/2 inch; 1/2 inch to 1/4 inch; etc. Remove the ball grill from
> the SM58 and it will be more similar to the SM57 in its low frequency
> response.
>
> Any other differences you hear between the SM57 and SM58 are likely to be
> subjective (psycho-acoustic) or due to slight manufacturing differences
> due to part tolerance.
>
> (end of quote)
>
> Steve

[Steve Scott]

says...
> Thanks for the replies. Everything folks are saying, combined with the
> material quoted, seems to indicate that the SM 58 sans ball should
> give a close approximation of the 57, with the one standout item from
> Steve's link, which yielded the following:
> -- a different resonator/grille assembly design of the SM57 is
> responsible for its slightly higher output above 5 kHz.--
> So there does seem to be a relevant difference in construction other
> than the ball which affects the response. So I wonder how much or how
> little difference. Aside from pure curiosity, I have a 58, but not a
> 57, and money has been tight enough lately to become the mother of
> invention.

Well Dan, on a tight budget, maybe see what a 57 grill would cost from
Shure? Or maybe some kind soul here might have an old dead 57 they would
donate the organ... er grill... from. Although I don't know if 57's ever
die <g>

BTW, I've used a 57 off and on for live vocal and recording for a long
time, it is far superior on my voice than the 58 (needs a good preamp
though). Use with the screw-attached Shure windscreen, the bare 57 will
pop more than 58.

Steve

[Dan]

Hi Steve,

I will indeed look into acquiring the part, and I will also just try
recording without the ball. If I get sounds that work for me, I guess
that's all that matters!

Thanks,
d


>
> Well Dan, on a tight budget, maybe see what a 57 grill would cost from
> Shure? Or maybe some kind soul here might have an old dead 57 they would
> donate the organ... er grill... from. Although I don't know if 57's ever
> die <g>
>
> BTW, I've used a 57 off and on for live vocal and recording for a long
> time, it is far superior on my voice than the 58 (needs a good preamp
> though). Use with the screw-attached Shure windscreen, the bare 57 will
> pop more than 58.
>
> Steve

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Steve Scott > wrote:
says...
>> Thanks for the replies. Everything folks are saying, combined with the
>> material quoted, seems to indicate that the SM 58 sans ball should
>> give a close approximation of the 57, with the one standout item from
>> Steve's link, which yielded the following:
>> -- a different resonator/grille assembly design of the SM57 is
>> responsible for its slightly higher output above 5 kHz.--
>> So there does seem to be a relevant difference in construction other
>> than the ball which affects the response. So I wonder how much or how
>> little difference. Aside from pure curiosity, I have a 58, but not a
>> 57, and money has been tight enough lately to become the mother of
>> invention.
>
>Well Dan, on a tight budget, maybe see what a 57 grill would cost from
>Shure? Or maybe some kind soul here might have an old dead 57 they would
>donate the organ... er grill... from. Although I don't know if 57's ever
>die <g>

The SM57 grille also has some sonic effect, but it's a lot less than the
effect of the SM58 grille.

You can't just put an SM57 grille on an SM58 or vice-versa, because the
body castings are a little different. The SM57 one has no thread.

>BTW, I've used a 57 off and on for live vocal and recording for a long
>time, it is far superior on my voice than the 58 (needs a good preamp
>though). Use with the screw-attached Shure windscreen, the bare 57 will
>pop more than 58.

Yes, and the thing is that the SM58 is a more expensive microphone. If you
go to a pawn shop and offer to trade a used SM58 for their used SM57, they
will probably take you up on it and then everyone is happier.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Dan]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message:
>
> Yes, and the thing is that the SM58 is a more expensive microphone. If you
> go to a pawn shop and offer to trade a used SM58 for their used SM57, they
> will probably take you up on it and then everyone is happier.
> --scott

Hmm, there's a thought...It had never occurred to me to ever get rid
of a mic. My wife would say it never occurs to me to get rid of
anything!

Thanks,

d

[Steve Scott]

says...
<snip>
> You can't just put an SM57 grille on an SM58 or vice-versa, because the
> body castings are a little different. The SM57 one has no thread.

Now I knew that, been so long since I took the foam screens off mine I
had forgotten it. Sorry for the bad advice Dan.

> Yes, and the thing is that the SM58 is a more expensive microphone. If you
> go to a pawn shop and offer to trade a used SM58 for their used SM57, they
> will probably take you up on it and then everyone is happier.
> --scott

Good idea Scott. I know I almost never use my SM58's anymore but a lot
of people still seem to like them.

Steve