1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

SM 58 and SM 58 BETA

Discussion in 'Recording' started by Guitarfreak, Mar 3, 2009.

  1. Guitarfreak

    Guitarfreak Well-Known Member

    The next mic I am going to get is going to be one of the two, but which? I heard the BETA has a tighter pattern, but also a more modern tone. WTF is modern tone? In my experience with talking to pro audio engineers, the best stuff was made back when.

    I will be using the mic to record my own vocals in my budget home studio...(ok its my bedroom). I intend on recording my guitar at the same time and perhaps the tighter pattern of the BETA might reject some of the bleed from my amp? Side question - will the tighter pattern make on-axis sounds brighter or more "in-your-face"?

    Let me know what your thoughts on the matter are.
     
  2. IIRs

    IIRs Well-Known Member

    The beta has a higher output level, and an extended high frequency response which makes it brighter sounding than the classic '58.

    Which will sound better depends on your voice: some voices suit the extra brightness, while others start to sound harsh and brittle instead.

    Personally I prefer the classic '58 on most male voices.

    The tighter pattern will not make sounds brighter. Actually it might do the opposite if working very close to the mic, as a tighter pattern means more proximity effect .
     
  3. Boswell

    Boswell Moderator Distinguished Member

    Ignore comments about "modern tone". They are meaningless.

    The hypercardioid pattern of the Beta58A is useful for working with multiple foldback monitors on a cramped stage, as it has two null points to the rear. In a studio (however small), this has no bearing if you are tracking guitar and vocals separately, and you would be better off with the ubiquity of the SM58.

    You say you are recording guitar (via an amp) and vocals at the same time in a small (presumably untreated) room. You will get almost unusable bleed of the amp into the vocal mic if you do this, whatever the pickup pattern of the vocal mic.

    If you insist on playing and singing at the same time, one way round the problem of bleed is to record the guitar silently via a DI on one track and your vocals on another, while monitoring both on headphones. The guitar will not sound right yet. Then you play back the guitar track into the amplifier while recording the miked output of the amplifier on a third track. This technique is called "re-amping".

    The result will be that you have two acoustically isolated tracks that you can process independently. You can even blend in some of the DI track to get a variation of tone during the choruses, say.
     
  4. Guitarfreak

    Guitarfreak Well-Known Member

    My amp has an emulated DI out, the only thing I'm concerned about is the fact that it sounds like $*^t. Forgive the french. The clean DO sounds decent but not as warm as the amped tone but the distorted DO just sounds like butt...

    Now for the re-amping, I have heard this before and still wonder exactly how to do it. How exactly do I get the already recorded guitar sound back to my amplifier without using a mic? It's probably very simple but I may be overlooking it.

    Thanks for the advice!
     
  5. IIRs

    IIRs Well-Known Member

    two basic ways to approach it:

    1. Use a DI box between the guitar and the amp while recording. This will take a 'sniff' of the raw guitar signal allowing you to record it to a DAW track while monitoring through your amp as usual (which might be important to the feel). Then you can send the raw guitar signal back to the amp for the 're-amping' part. (If you used a passive DI you can then use it 'backwards', so that the amp sees the same kind of signal as it would straight from the guitar. You might get away without however, just plug a line out straight into the amp)

    2. Plug your guitar straight into the DAW, preferably via a high impedaance ("Hi Z") input. You can use a plug-in amp simulator while recording to get you close to the sound of your amp: you will still be recording the dry DI signal from the guitar. Then send it back to the amp the same way as above.
     
  6. Davedog

    Davedog Distinguished Member

    Bos! "the ubiquity of the SM58"........God how I LOVE the English people.

    Can I use that in my sig??


    Okay. Yes Shure felt they had to 'modernize' the sound of the SM series, but notice that they didnt get rid of the originals.

    Theres a reason for that.

    I'm not a fan of the Betas. Except on a tight stage and this has been addressed perfectly. I also quit using my 58 on stage because as a former FOH guy, I found that without that FOH guy runnin the mix, a 58 can get that serious boom from the proximity effect, and with no mixer (we mix from stage) theres times when this can be a problem.

    So we have gone to all hyper-cardioids. Audio Technicas. Still a nice bump for the intimate sections of a song but nice and clear with a lot of control for everthing else.

    But we're not talkin on stage...we're talking the "ubiquity of the SM58".

    They are everywhere because they simply work well in almost every situation.
     
  7. Guitarfreak

    Guitarfreak Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the info. I am most likely going to get the original SM58 because although the BETA seems good, I don't know if it's 1.6x better. u c what I did thar?
     
  8. rockstardave

    rockstardave Active Member

    beta has that neodymium magnet. a lot of people claim they can hear the difference that a N/D magnet gives. i claim to know a lot of people who claim that.

    i give props and respect to the sm58 and beta58, but neither are my go to vocal mics on stage.

    :-O~&*$% <-- puking guy
     
  9. robcranmer

    robcranmer Guest

    Ok, since I'm the dumbass who used the words "modern sounding" re:beta 58's...let me chime in here. NO MIC ON THIS, OR ANY OTHER PLANET IS APPROPRIATE FOR EVERY SITUATION! And NO, an sm58 is NOT an sm 57 with a diff. cover. The two don't sound anything alike, nor are their pickup patterns(in actual use) very similar. I said in another topic, that the Beta's have a more modern sound. Sorry, you are right, I should have qualified that! I simply meant that todays music has an emphasis on brightness and higher volume levels. You will find the beta's fit the bill perfectly, if that's the sound your going for. As I've been a music sales rep for quite some time let me say this regarding price...yes the beta's are more expensive, yes music sales is "ALL" about negotiating your price. DON'T BE AFRAID TO CHISEL!!! NOBODIES WAGES HAVE REMAINED AS STATIC OVER THE PAST 30-40 YEARS AS HAVE OURS(MUSICIANS) SO DON'T BE SHY ABOUT ASKING FOR THAT SIGNIFICANT DISCOUNT!!! RISE UP FELLOW MUSICIANS---BITE THOSE HANDS THAT FEED.....ER...WELLL...i'LL JUST SHUT UP NOW!
    p.s.: All previous simplified..SM58...wanna sound like Elvis, then good choice! SM57 hellatious proximity effect on tiny diaphragm results in decent mid range sound..ie(guitar cabinets/small to mid size drums/any other loud sound source where clarity is not particularly important. Wanna sound like the president when he's making a speech from the White House Rose Garden...well that's the mic he uses!
    Nuff Said!
    P.S.S. I'm with rockstar Dave...neither are my go-to mics on stage or recording
     
  10. Davedog

    Davedog Distinguished Member

    See, I like this guy. I sit quietly and watch people claim that the 57 and the 58 are the same mics with different covers.

    We have a member here, I wont name him, who has worked for Shure, and he once assured me that they were in fact similar capsule constructs, but different in response and toneality. The specs are different. Check em out. I always felt the proximity effect was enhanced on the 58 and the ball kept you at the proper distance to use this to your advantage. And the 57 was 'Voiced' for instruments...thus not as pronounced a proximity effect.

    So go unscrew the ball on yer 58 and dig out a 57. Side by side compare. Be careful you dont flatten the diaphram on the 58.

    I do think they're different. Some.

    Lets see. Just for the record. I have six 57's now and a 58 somewhere.....When I had a PA I had 20 57's and 5 58's. All differing ages, amount of abuse etc.. so I have heard a few. Thats not to mention the 4 or 5 others that I have owned while playing and the countless ones I have sang through provided by some sound-jockey.

    Call me crazy.....I know....
     
  11. robcranmer

    robcranmer Guest

    OK, if your guy say's so, let's say they do have the same capsule(SM57 & SM58)...my van and my car both have 3 liter engines, but one goes 0-60 in 4 to 5 seconds and the other takes 5 minutes(or so it seems)!!! The package the capsule is in has a LOT to do with it's sound! That's all I meant!!!..Rob
     
  12. Davedog

    Davedog Distinguished Member

    They have "similar" capsules. They are similar in their build, similar in their manfacturing, similar in the type of materials they are made of.....similar. Not 'the same' as most people think. And YES the screens on each do make a huge difference just like the screen on my Neumann makes a difference in its response.

    Dude....I was agreeing with you.
     
  13. robcranmer

    robcranmer Guest

    Oh, sorry!!! I'm new to this forum stuff! I thought I was being...how do you say....Flamed! Tough day today, had to go to court with 14 yr old daughter(she likes the bottle)...so my feathers are a little ruffled...again...sorry!
    P.S. ...to my fellow musicians....Do you have better success with your kids by A) Telling them the absolute truth about the dumb crap you did when you were young.
    B) Keep quiet about what you did, advise them based on what you were told were the proper things to do in life
    C) Have a diffrnt system entirely!
     
  14. Codemonkey

    Codemonkey Well-Known Member

    (btw, I'm not a parent) the way I feel just now D) ignore them and tell yourself they'll eventually realise what you realised and come to be nice people.

    D) <- worst plan ever.
     

Share This Page