Is my SM57 broken?!

[Clark Kent]

So I bought an SM57 to record my guitars and before I was recording stuff with my SM58 and I was satisfied but thought I'd get the industry standard mic. Well I got to test this mic yesterday and I did NOT like how it sounded compared to the SM58. My SM57 has a huge scoop at 500hz... like 10-15dB scoop. I'll post a pic and clips to show you what I mean.

Shure SM58


Shure SM57



Here are some white noise tests:

http://www.mediafire.com/?p9cvlc5lxb6y9cf
http://www.mediafire.com/?i7cv9x1m2hp2xnq

So is this normal or should I return the mic and get a new one?

 

[Derpsicle]

Y U NO SOUNDCLOUD!

 

[egan.]

Hey Clark. It's tough to know looking at it but this is not a way I've typically seen 57's fail (sometimes they get extremely thin or more commonly you get intermittent failure). Just for the hell of it, try comparing the 58 w/o the windscreen to the 57 just for experiments sake. They should be more similar (though still not identical).

 

[Clark Kent]

No soundcloud because this way you can download and measure the clips. This IS the SM58 without the cup. Exact same mic position.

 

[JakeAC5253]

Seems about fine to me. A $100 mic is not going to be flat response. The curve looks to be about what a 57 should be expected to reproduce. By your graphs, the 57 has a dip at 500Hz that the 58 doesn't have, and the 58 has a dip at 1kHz that the 57 doesn't have. The low end on the 58 is also more present than the 57. Both of which I would attribute to their different response characteristics. The capsule is tuned a bit differently on the 58 to accommodate the addition of the pop filter, so don't expect it to sound the same as a 57 even if you remove the pop filter.

Get those clips on Dropbox or Soundcloud and I will listen to them, I don't use mediafire or mediafire-like links. You can download clips through dropbox links too, it's just overall a more user-friendly service.

 

[delayshifter]

just match EQ that !

 

[egan.]

No soundcloud because this way you can download and measure the clips. This IS the SM58 without the cup. Exact same mic position.

Haha. Fair enough. To my knowledge it's the same capsule and transformer so I'm surprised it would be that different, but they also change over time so if either has seen significantly more wear than the other that will have an impact as well.

From Shure:

What’s the real difference between an SM57 and an SM58? There are actually a fair number of myths and misconceptions about what the difference really is.
The basic difference is the grille. The other parts -- the diaphragm and voice coil combination, the magnet, the transformer that’s in the handle, the handle itself, the closing ring that surrounds the cartridge – are identical.
In the SM58, the ball grille with the foam lining provides an extra degree of pop protection and wind protection. The SM57 has a much more compact grille arrangement that doesn’t provide nearly as much protection against blast or wind. But the basic frequency response and polar patterns are almost identical – there is only a slight difference in high frequencies where the shape of the grille starts to affect the response. But that probably doesn’t kick in until 13, 14 or 15 kHz – something like that.

But honestly I have 10 57's here and none of them sound identical (granted not 10dB down at 500 different).

EDIT:
Then again, these are from Shure as well and they resemble your charts:
http://www.shure.com/idc/groups/public/documents/webcontent/us_pro_sm58_specsheet.pdf
http://www.shure.com/idc/groups/public/documents/webcontent/us_pro_sm57_specsheet.pdf

 

[JakeAC5253]

From Shure

What’s the real difference between an SM57 and an SM58? There are actually a fair number of myths and misconceptions about what the difference really is.
The basic difference is the grille. The other parts -- the diaphragm and voice coil combination, the magnet, the transformer that’s in the handle, the handle itself, the closing ring that surrounds the cartridge – are identical.
In the SM58, the ball grille with the foam lining provides an extra degree of pop protection and wind protection. The SM57 has a much more compact grille arrangement that doesn’t provide nearly as much protection against blast or wind. But the basic frequency response and polar patterns are almost identical – there is only a slight difference in high frequencies where the shape of the grille starts to affect the response. But that probably doesn’t kick in until 13, 14 or 15 kHz – something like that.

I would probably disregard almost everything that is said here. I am shocked that a spokesperson from Shure corporation is as clueless as this, but so is the way of things in a downed economy I guess... Any engineer who has used them would say that there is a distinctly audible difference in both the sound and function of the two mics. Somebody who injects "probably" and "something like that" into an academic conversation, is not going to change my mind about anything. That explanation also does not explain why the SM58 has more proximity effect than the 57 does, even though the pop filter keeps things further from the diaphragm.

 

[Clark Kent]

egan, have you ever experienced a 500hz scoop with any of your SM57 mics?

When I did my Orange video with the SM57 there was no scoop there but now there is........ :S

 

[egan.]

@Jake, I agree accept I disagree on the proximity effect. My experience has been the oposite-- that the 57's proximity effect can get totally out of control where the 58 is more predictable. And the point of why I quoted that is "The basic difference is the grille. The other parts -- the diaphragm and voice coil combination, the magnet, the transformer that’s in the handle, the handle itself, the closing ring that surrounds the cartridge – are identical" which is pretty obvious if you take them apart. This is a marketing attempt by Shure but I wouldn't assume their Senior Applications Engineer is clueless (though he may well be).

@Clark, TBH not that I've noticed but I'm rarely lining up more than two of them at a time and generally on guitar cabs which by the nature of the placement makes it difficult to identify microphone vs. source variations. Typically where I notice the most variation is at the margins. Some seem to smooth out the top and while others are a little sharper. Same thing with the roll off on the bottom end. No doubt that some of this is age (mine range between (3 and 25 years old) but the one in the last ten years still seem to vary. But, no, I haven't noticed one being totally sucked out in the mids. At some point I'll throw them all up on the same cab and post samples though.

 

[Clark Kent]

Okay guys here are the soundcloud links:



Basically if this is the difference I prefer the SM57 on vocals and SM58 on guitar cabs. To me the difference is like night and day.

Would love to get some more feedback since I know there are people on this forum that know everything about the SM57.

 

[Beezerk]

@Jake, I agree accept I disagree on the proximity effect. My experience has been the oposite-- that the 57's proximity effect can get totally out of control where the 58 is more predictable.

Apologies for the hijack but what is the proximity effect exactly?
I mic up my 75W Vypyr using an SM57 and get decent results after eq (before it doesn't sound great), I tried micing at 45 degrees last week and couldn't even get a decent signal, it had lots of hiss and virtually no guitar signal. Never quite foiund out why, someone suggested I had a dodgy cable and moving it to 45 degrees caused a fault but it was only a guess.

 

[egan.]

The proximity effect is a bass boost that occurs as the source gets closer to directional mics. The degree to which it occurs varies widely on the microphone design.
http://shure.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2844/~/why-does-proximity-effect-occur?
Your example is totally unrelated and sounds like a cable issue.

 

[tgs]

@Jake, I agree accept I disagree on the proximity effect. My experience has been the oposite-- that the 57's proximity effect can get totally out of control where the 58 is more predictable. And the point of why I quoted that is "The basic difference is the grille. The other parts -- the diaphragm and voice coil combination, the magnet, the transformer that’s in the handle, the handle itself, the closing ring that surrounds the cartridge – are identical" which is pretty obvious if you take them apart. This is a marketing attempt by Shure but I wouldn't assume their Senior Applications Engineer is clueless (though he may well be).

How in the world is it a marketing attempt to say that two mics are more or less the same design? That's pretty much the opposite of a marketing attempt.

"Academic discussion", well that surely never applied to 99% of the discussions I've seen between sound people.

Personal experience: 57 vs 58 without grille have yielded an almost identical result in the very few tests I've run. The main difference has been between different 57s/58s. Compare two 57s and you'll find some differences (as someone else also pointed out). Same with two 58s or one 57 and one 58.

The hilarious thing about when people try to compare things is that they categorically fail to blind. That is what sadly makes practically all discussions about equipment so misguiding. It's sad, really. I often want to find if A) if there's a difference between certain signal chains, and B) which one I prefer; but I'm always hindered by being fed the details combined with people's comments based on the same details. What follows is usually a tirade of adjectives.

Well well. Rant over...

 

[Beezerk]

The proximity effect is a bass boost that occurs as the source gets closer to directional mics. The degree to which it occurs varies widely on the microphone design.
http://shure.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2844/~/why-does-proximity-effect-occur?
Your example is totally unrelated and sounds like a cable issue.

Thanks for clearing it up mate.

 

[egan.]

How in the world is it a marketing attempt to say that two mics are more or less the same design? That's pretty much the opposite of a marketing attempt.

Why are you so angry at me for explaining why I quoted the article? It is a marketing attempt b/c it's an interview between two Shure employees, about two Shure products, and published on a Shure website. However I obviously thought it had value since I quoted it and I also believe that the manufacturer would know what parts they use.

 

[Clark Kent]

No forum wars here guys!

So the conclusion is that my SM57 is just fine? I made this video comparison of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmyhCiL7XmU&feature=player_detailpage#t=209s

 

[Clark Kent]

So I got frustrated so I borrowed another SM57 from a friend of mine and compared it to my SM57 and SM58. This was revealing at least. Let's start with "Mythbusting": SM58 WITHOUT THE GRILL IS NOT THE SAME MIC AS AN SM57!! Another test result: My mic is just fine. The frequency response of the the SM57s are almost identical. I mean it's 99% the same. Here are the graphs. The first graph is my friends SM57 and the second graph is my SM57. Not a big difference right? The third graph is my SM58 which is drastically different than either of the SM57s. I think I still prefer the SM58 for micing guitars though.

 

[Derpsicle]

That's quite a difference, now go get another SM58! Maybe you got a mutant SM58 or something.

 

[Clark Kent]

I own two SM58s. They sounds the same to me... I use them on vocals in rehearsals mainly.