I must say I was on GS by accident while searching arguments putting sm57 vs sm58.

What was funny was the thought that an electronic engineer would : 'hey lets roll off the HF of this mic to limit the production cost ! eh eh
Knowing that many cheap mics have too much top end, it's a bit ironic

Please share other misconception about quality and cost ;)

I think a other area where quality vs cost is not always justified, is electric guitars. In general u get what u pay for, but I've picked up American starts that play and sound worse than they're Mexican cousins.

''The Upgraded TAB 57 captures more warmth and detail, where that extra detail is rolled off on a stock 57 to cut production costs.''

Just seems like an odd marketing strategy, considering electric guitar and rock snare drums are where ya put em most. Lol how much detail is really left an inch away from a 100w stack????

Also, as far as cutting costs, it's most likely has less to do w sonics, than QC issues. Delicate mics like condensers handle transients and highs so well becuase of their very thin diaphragms, and keeping them consistent when talking a couple mm's means many are gonna get tossed. Dynamics naturally have thicker diaphragms, but my guess is that if this is true, it's becuase they could leave a thicker, diaphragm, and adhere to less strict standards, and throw less diaphragms out. The roll off was probably just a side effect.

The story I heard was that the capsules are the same manufacture, and the ones that meet the tolerances of a 58 go there, the others go to 57s, and anything outside of those tolerances end up in the 48s or pg series.

Hmmm.. I don't know.

I'm not saying that this isn't a possibility, but, if using the elements that fell outside the tolerances for each mic is what is being used in those other models - unlike the 57/58 -which can always be counted on to have continuity from mic to mic - I could see a lot of inconsistency happening in those models where these "throw-away" elements were being used.

I can believe the story about selection of capsules between different series of microphones (e.g. SM series vs. PG series), but as far as I know there is no difference between the capsule in an SM57 and that in an SM58. The major difference between these two microphones is in the design of the body, including the acoustic labyrinth and (more visibly) the windshield.

According to Shure, the replacement capsules for the 57 and the 58 are different. The 57 uses an R57 capsule and the 58 uses an R59.

However.... according to Shure, both mics use identical diaphragms - the Unidyne III. The cartridges - R57 and R58 - that house the Unidyne diaphragm are different merely because the physical attributes of each mic differ, so the cartridges are slightly different to accommodate these physical differences. When it comes down to the actual diaphragm itself, though - without the cartridge housing as a factor - they are both be identical.

As far as tonal differences - either real or perceived - From Shure:

"The diaphragms for both the SM57 and SM58 are identical. Both use the Unidyne 3 diaphragm. As far as tonal differences, the grill design on the 57 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."

FWIW :)

d/

Cools stuff. Hers an interesting tidbit from the shur blog about the sm7b, which was my first reaction.

According to John, the development of the SM7 went something like this: “A group of Shure acoustical engineers were given the SM57 cartridge element (Unidyne III) and asked, without restrictions on size or cost, to make it better. And they went nuts.” This may be one reason why John likes to refer to the SM7B as “an SM57 on steroids”.

Variations of the Shure Unidyne III cartridge are used in many of Shure’s dynamic microphones. The SM57, SM58 and SM7B all share a similar acoustic network based on the Unidyne III element, but there are a few differences between the SM7B cartridge and the SM57/SM58 cartridge design:

• The SM7B diaphragm is slightly different and optimized for increased low end response
• The larger housing of the SM7B allows for a larger rear volume behind the cartridge which extends its low end response
• The internal shockmount of the SM7B is optimized to reduce stand vibrations, while the shockmount in the SM57/SM58 is optimized to reduce noise in handheld applications

class="xf-ul">
More from John: “The SM7 was designed as an extended, full range microphone and intended to be universal in its applications. It has a flatter and wider response than its SM57 and SM58 siblings but its frequency shaping switches in the back (selectable low cut and presence peak filtering) allow it to more than adequately fulfill (and enhance) applications where the SM57 or SM58 excel.”

If you have a stock of genuine Shure SM58s or 57s - from different ages, pop them on sensitive scales. You will see considerable differences in their weight. Over the years, and perhaps even from batch to batch, things are changed. I'd suggest almost every bit at some time has been changed, and these changes must have impacted on the sound - so is it really fair to tag what is a range of slightly different mics as one single model?

We like 58s and 57s because they're tough, reliable and do the job. In reality, they're never absolutely identical, but within a gnat's whisker of the eq to put right. Perhaps we should consider alternatives? I've been using Line 6 guitars for quite a while now, because their modelling works well - and I also have some of their hand held radio mics. These also can model the SM58 and the Beta58 mics. They actually do it very well, and singing or speaking into them is so close I can't tell - BUT - the capsule doesn't change it's polar pattern - so when you use them, they don't behave the same. The rear lobe is a bit different, so a mic and monitor combination that work really well with an SM58, do odd things with the Line 6 set to SM58 - maybe you get a bit more gain before feedback, or less, and you may have to even move the monitors.

So does an old 58 without the basket sound like a brand new 57? No idea. Does it matter? If it does the job well, that's good enough for me!

I used to own a PA that I rented on occasion. I had 22 SM57's of varying ages and amount of abuse, 3 SM58's,and a pair of SM81's. Five of the SM57's were mics I had owned for lots of years. Two of them I had bought as my FIRST microphones in 1969. I still have them. The first two. When I sold the PA gear, I went through all the mics and sold or traded every one of them except two that were early 'made in Sonora' mics and the first two I had for ever. They all sounded better than all the others. To this day I would have ZERO problem putting one of those old Unidyne lll's up on an acoustic guitar. These two have a presence like no other SM57 or 58 I've ever heard. Measuring the voltage out shows them to be almost half a volt hotter than they should be. All these years and all the traveling and smoke and beer and whatnot has not deterred them from sounding great. No crackle in the connectors, no mysterious 'veil' over the high end response, no farty low end....Like new would apply ...but like new 1960's is a better description.

If I had to choose one mic from my collection to take to the desert island I would choose one of these over anything else I have. BTW....I ONLY use it on snare under and guitar cabinets. Oh yeah, theres much better mics that will do the job, but none of them are instant "GUITAR" or "UNDER SNR" with no muss, no fuss. I've got much more important things to mic up than sitting around for hours trying to dial something in that only lacks the proper tool to enlighten it.

As an aside to all the visitors and folks from other sites looking for a suggestion about what mic to buy to record with....I'd say buy whatever makes you happy. The only set-back to that is having to live and experience something for a certain length of time to determine its happiness quotient. Or buy a 57 and go record something.