I can't agree more. Thanks for confirming the new 58's are still measuring up to the vintage. I suspect it felt/ sounded the same?

And yeah... 58's are much better for vocals imho too.

I got one too, a few months back. It does perform as expected..

Actually I did record a band a couple of weeks ago (live in my studio). They were inexperienced so recording them all at once was the best thing to do.
Since I still wanted the best seperation, I used the SM58 with my LA-610.
I thought we were gonna retrack the vocals anyway. But no, the signer insisted keeping the tracks as is...

A bit of mixing and I can say that his voice sounds very good.
No one would know it wasn't a 2k condenser !
Of course I'm not recording with a Behringer micro mixer.. LOL !! ;)

Note : I also bought a SM57 clone, I'm gonna make a video about it in a few weeks.

I think the main attraction to the SM mics is their consistency in sound - there's never any "surprises", at least not bad ones anyway, LOL
Also, the build quality. I can't say for a fact that Shure set out to make a mic that was ice, snow and lawnmower proof - LOL - but mine sure was. After that incident in '93, I went on to continue to use that 57 for another 23 years. Considering I bought it new in '78, I'd say I definitely got my money's worth. ;)
The price is the other thing, up until just recently, 57's and 58's were priced below $100. That's a very small inflation over the years.
As it turned out, the store was having a sale on 58s the very day I decided to buy. I ended up paying $85, out the door.

pcrecord, post: 450624, member: 46460 wrote: I got one too, a few months back. It does perform as expected..

Actually I did record a band a couple of weeks ago (live in my studio). They were inexperienced so recording them all at once was the best thing to do.
Since I still wanted the best seperation, I used the SM58 with my LA-610.
I thought we were gonna retrack the vocals anyway. But no, the signer insisted keeping the tracks as is...

A bit of mixing and I can say that his voice sounds very good.
No one would know it wasn't a 2k condenser !
Of course I'm not recording with a Behringer micro.

I recall the first time I heard a 57 through a nice preamp... it was a Millennia pre, and my jaw dropped at just how great it sounded. I remember thinking at the time that I would have had absolutely no hesitation in using it as a primary vocal mic for recording with that combination.
;)
-d.

Classic mic! Kudos for getting a good deal on it, it try to only buy on sale with everything possible.

Not a lot of changes to those designs in the....oh let's see.....52 years since the release. Ernie Seeler' unidyne III capsule. And thanks to Ben Bauer who invented to Unidyne in 1937. I will say this. The really OLD ones sound better than the new ones. I'm not kidding. Of course the REALLY OLD ONES have to have been babied their entire lives in order to have survived with their fidelity intact. I still have the two 57's I bought new in 1969, my first mic purchases, and they are different in many ways yet still the same. They both put out a few more micro volts than the new ones, they are more sensitive, and would bet theres a touch more top-end with a tighter bass response. And your mouths would all gape at the sound when hooked up to a very high-end pre. I still do.

I do own several 57/58's. New and old....

congrats donny, always a good feeling when you get something and its what you thought it was going to be or better,
as so much stuff you get can be the other way.

Davedog, post: 451058, member: 4495 wrote: I will say this. The really OLD ones sound better than the new ones. I'm not kidding. Of course the REALLY OLD ONES have to have been babied their entire lives in order to have survived with their fidelity intact. .
.

Dave funny you should say that......
i do Pa hire and also have a number of 58s, me personally i have gone right off them after trying an AKG C5
http://www.akg.com/Microphones/Condenser Microphones/C5.html
This is a hand held Condenser and really is another world, if you get the chance, try one out.
I do 2 bands, A soul band for the cash, and a funk band for the love, the singer in the soul band has now also moved over to the C5.
The singer in the funk band is an old friend and was in a well known band in the 80s, and decided not to put away his dancing shooes quite yet and so is back in the fold, since the 80s he had kept his old 58 in the garage ! !
when he brought it round cus it would not work i took it apart, the ball sponge just disintergrated on contact, the small round main capsule sponge was tacky but the coil and diaphram was good , and the solder joint on the xlr was stopping it working.
Once cleaned up, what can i say..... wow, a big difference from all my 58s..
so whats the difference ???
well, in his which i think is from the mid to late 70s, half way down the body inside is a transformer, all my 58s do not have this ( ammended) the same,
in his it looks bigger and mine smaller sort of resin bonded in.
so dave my question is....
your ones that sound better..... is there a larger transformer inside

bob, post: 451796, member: 50714 wrote: ...a big difference from all my 58s..
so whats the difference ???
well, in his which i think is from the mid to late 70s, half way down the body inside is a transformer, all my 58s do not have this.

All genuine SM58s have a transformer. Draw your own conclusions.

Boswell, post: 451797, member: 29034 wrote: All genuine SM58s have a transformer. Draw your own conclusions.

They all have a transformer but it's not said how the quality changed over the years.
I bought 2 transformers as replacement genuine shure parts. Cost me 30CAD (21USD).. We are far from a cinemag or Lundahl transfo !

pcrecord, post: 451798, member: 46460 wrote: They all have a transformer but it's not said how the quality changed over the years.

That's true, it could have changed from visible to invisible.

I still have my 58 I bought in 1985 just as I was preparing to do my one and only tour. Only issue over the years was the foam hardened in the mesh cover, and so I replaced the cover, it was rusty too :). Solid mic!.

Ah sorry i will ammend the post and get a pic.
should of made it more clear,
yes mine have a transformer, they are sort of glued hafway down in a resin.
the one in my singers looks different, i will gat a pic

ah sorry i will ammended the post,
my transformers are bonded in and smaller.
sorry about that should have been more clear
will get a pic of both..

Beware of clones, in my recent videos I discovered that they had put a yellow capacitor look alike instead of a transformer. (in part 3)
Of course the sound was bad so it was easy to spot...
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIOTKPRRSirxEfpkIPXEGHatkilxhcUIy

I can find nothing at this point which says that Shure changed the transformer. It might be that the transformer company themselves altered it a bit but I would suspect that they had to hit the mark with the number of winds etc.. in order to be accepted by Shure.

There are mods that can be done and one of these is a transformer "upgrade" or even a complete transformer removal. I did this to a 57 I had a while back. I traded it eventually. It was a made in Mexico mic anyway so no harm came to the 'vintage' 57's I still have. I have found that changing the impedance on your preamp makes a WORLD of difference to these iconic mics.

It would be interesting to know who the XFO on the 58's were made by... I suppose it's possible that Shure built their own but my suspicion is it was subcontracted to a XFO manufacturer and built to Shure's specs.
FWIW, every 58 I've ever owned ... going WAY back - had XFO's.

All SM57's and SM58's have been made in Mexico since the mid-80's.

And for anyone interested, the quickest way to fix the deteriorated foam and improve the look of your old 58 is a new grill.
The SM58 replacement grills are easy to find, and pretty reasonably priced.

The grill for the SM58, however, will NOT fit a Beta58. The Beta grill is a different size and thread - and it's 5x more expensive (for absolutely no apparent reason). You wouldn't think a blue stripe would cost an extra $35.

If you buy a new grill for a 57 it will include the miserable retaining spring, which often gets lost when the grill gets knocked off. If your 57 grill is in pretty good shape and just missing the retaining spring, do NOT wrap tape around the gap between the grill and the body, as I often see (and have tried myself before I knew any better). Air needs to be able to pass through that thin metal mesh 'collar'. Instead, a couple drops of superglue placed on opposite sides will usually work just fine, and not block the mesh. *That tip courtesy of Savoy Brown's soundman, Randy.

Guess I was lucky to get one from stock. I remember I paid a lot (Australia) for mine. Note made in USA and multi impedance.

Attached files

Makzimia, post: 451814, member: 48344 wrote: Guess I was lucky to get one from stock. I remember I paid a lot (Australia) for mine. Note made in USA and multi impedance.

So that one should say Shure Brothers on it somewhere. I have three 57's like that.

Davedog, post: 451832, member: 4495 wrote: So that one should say Shure Brothers on it somewhere. I have three 57's like that.

Possibly Dave. I was just madly scrambling to see I did in fact buy what I thought I did in 1985 :). It was a small fortune for me back then.

Davedog, post: 451806, member: 4495 wrote: I can find nothing at this point which says that Shure changed the transformer. It might be that the transformer company themselves altered it a bit but I would suspect that they had to hit the mark with the number of winds etc.. in order to be accepted by Shure.

There are mods that can be done and one of these is a transformer "upgrade" or even a complete transformer removal. I did this to a 57 I had a while back. I traded it eventually. It was a made in Mexico mic anyway so no harm came to the 'vintage' 57's I still have. I have found that changing the impedance on your preamp makes a WORLD of difference to these iconic mics.

A commercially successful co worker of mine swears they've modified/cheapens the XFO's over the years, as his reasoning behind liking older ones better, and more substantially, maintaining the same price point for such a long time. It could be that the tech specs are the same and the $ was saved simply by outsourcing to cheaper manufacturing locations. The dude can be a butthead, but he does know gear and componetry quite well, to the point of obsessive disorder.

I got chewed out here on RO by John Hardy for mentioning this. Mr. Hardy stated that sure hasn't changed the xfo, and is seemingly very knowledgeable and a big fan of xfo's in general.

So, i dunno for myself, I don't belive either stance at this point, and would love to see a true comparison by an expert, visually, and audibly, before I draw a conclusion.

I remain skeptical if for no other reason, how could the components of the xfo be identical over such a long span of time. Isn't one of the hardest parts about clones and rebuilds, sourcing NOS parts? The mixture of the alloys and raw materials that compose the parts can easily be changed slightly or significantly over time, and it would be strange to me if they didn't.

From my experience every 57 I've used that's from the last 25-30 years sound indistinguishable. Considering it's on a snare, cab, or aggressive vocal, the minutia doesn't seem to matter, or at least, hasn't ever mattered to me.

dvdhawk, post: 451811, member: 36047 wrote: All SM57's and SM58's have been made in Mexico since the mid-80's.

And for anyone interested, the quickest way to fix the deteriorated foam and improve the look of your old 58 is a new grill.
The SM58 replacement grills are easy to find, and pretty reasonably priced.

The grill for the SM58, however, will NOT fit a Beta58. The Beta grill is a different size and thread - and it's 5x more expensive (for absolutely no apparent reason). You wouldn't think a blue stripe would cost an extra $35.

If you buy a new grill for a 57 it will include the miserable retaining spring, which often gets lost when the grill gets knocked off. If your 57 grill is in pretty good shape and just missing the retaining spring, do NOT wrap tape around the gap between the grill and the body, as I often see (and have tried myself before I knew any better). Air needs to be able to pass through that thin metal mesh 'collar'. Instead, a couple drops of superglue placed on opposite sides will usually work just fine, and not block the mesh. *That tip courtesy of Savoy Brown's soundman, Randy.

Very interesting facts about the beta grill cover, and in general.

And no the SM58 I have doesn't say shure bros on it anywhere I can see. I am 100% confident it is the genuine article however :). The grill gets really nasty on them after hours of sweat and storage while on tour, especially if not wiped off I guess... it wasn't a consideration probably. Sat on it's stand for months up in northern Queensland Australia at each of the venues.

Makzimia, post: 451853, member: 48344 wrote: And no the SM58 I have doesn't say shure bros on it anywhere I can see. I am 100% confident it is the genuine article however :). The grill gets really nasty on them after hours of sweat and storage while on tour, especially if not wiped off I guess... it wasn't a consideration probably. Sat on it's stand for months up in northern Queensland Australia at each of the venues.

What is it about the mic the makes you so confident Mak? I'm not saying it's fake, but "made in the USA" is one of the most common things on fakes. That facts that it was expensive, and an international sale, don't scream authentic to me. Is there anything more tell tale about it, that points to its authenticity.

I'm more interested in using this as a reference for what makes it a real one, than trying to prove yours fake.

kmetal, post: 451882, member: 37533 wrote: What is it about the mic the makes you so confident Mak? I'm not saying it's fake, but "made in the USA" is one of the most common things on fakes. That facts that it was expensive, and an international sale, don't scream authentic to me. Is there anything more tell tale about it, that points to its authenticity.

I'm more interested in using this as a reference for what makes it a real one, than trying to prove yours fake.

Kyle,

You're asking one of the least tech savvy people on here lol, i.e. Is there something on it that really defines that, *shrug*. I bought it from a very reputable retail dealer for one in Sydney. I'm also fairly certain all the problems began post the year mine is from.

Tony

Makzimia, post: 451888, member: 48344 wrote: Kyle,

You're asking one of the least tech savvy people on here lol, i.e. Is there something on it that really defines that, *shrug*. I bought it from a very reputable retail dealer for one in Sydney. I'm also fairly certain all the problems began post the year mine is from.

Tony

Sounds good to me T. Fakes seem to be more prevalent over the www/person to person type sales. Good stuff!