[Nil[_2_]]

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), 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.

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.

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.

[geoff]

On 16/05/2018 4:16 PM, 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), 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.

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.

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.



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 !

geoff

[Nil[_2_]]

On 16 May 2018, geoff wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

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 !

All kidding aside... are you saying the new ones are brighter or
harsher than the old ones? Was this a gradual change, or was there some
major design change that did it, and when? My mic is about 40 years
old.

Brighter or harsher might not necessarily be a bad thing in some
situations for my voice, which tends to be soft-toned (not necessarily
volume-wise) and can have trouble cutting through. I would also be
using them on an electric guitar amp. I figure for that, "bright" can
be controlled by placement.

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Nil wrote:




All kidding aside... are you saying the new ones are brighter or
harsher than the old ones? Was this a gradual change, or was there some
major design change that did it, and when?



** Shure have made no major design changes to the SM57 or 58.

You may be confusing them it with the Beta 57/58 or Beta 57/58A models. The Beta 58 had no transformer and numerous other changes but was not a success and was soon dropped to be replaced by the Beta 58A.

My mic is about 40 years old.


** The foam sock under the grill and disk on top of the capsule turn into crumbles a lot sooner that that. Take a good look.


..... Phil

[Scott Dorsey]

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), 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.

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.

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.

SM-57 and SM-58 haven't changed, except that the consistency has improved
and they moved production to Mexico some time in the late 1980s.

Fletcher and a few others claim that the sound of the US-made ones is better
than the sound of the Mexican ones, but I could never tell the difference
really.

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.

Now, there have been a lot of variants on those designs, such as the 556
and the Beta 57 and so forth, but they aren't the same.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

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
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Nil[_2_]]

On 16 May 2018, Phil Allison wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

** The foam sock under the grill and disk on top of the capsule
turn into crumbles a lot sooner that that. Take a good look.

Been there, done that! Over the years the foam had turned to a gummy
tar-like mass. I scraped the crud out and used it for a few years with
just the bare metal ball, sometimes with an external foam thing. A few
months ago I discovered that you can get OEM grills for cheap, and I
did.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/16/2018 7:50 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
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.

A friend of mine who's selling off some of his mics decided to keep two
of his four SM-57s that he's acquired over about nearly a 50 year
period. He compared the four on a single voice (for convenience) and
found one that was considerably better than the rest. That was an
American made one.

Possibly there could be a difference in assembly or components, or just
the life that it (and the others) had led.



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[polymod]

"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)?

Poly


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

[Scott Dorsey]

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.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[polymod]

"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

[geoff]

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

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

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

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

[geoff]

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

[polymod]

"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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."