isaacullah
50 posts
Feb 23, 2009
12:44 PM
|
Hey all, I just found an source for high quality yet very cheap "clones" of the Shure-sm57 and sm-58 mics we all seem to love so much. http://www.speakerrepair.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=microphones
I found this out from a thread at the DIY stompbox forums: Topic: Q: cheap recording mic's (Read 136 times) of which I'm a frequent reader. I have not purchased one of these myself, and I'm in no way connected with that retailer, but I thought I'd stick the link up here for your information. IF they are as good of a quality as people say they are, then they are fantastic value for us poor harp players. An SM-57 will set you back nearly $90, but one of these clones is only $29, and they even have a deal where they throw in a cable for an extra $10, which seems pretty neat... I make my own mics (for way cheaper than even that), so I prob won't be buying one of these anytime soon, but I know a lot of you are intreseted in these kinds of mics... If that's you, then I hope you find this useful!
EDIT: I was just doing some more research on these (cause I'm a nerd) and thought I ought to stick up the link to the review page on them from Harmony Central: http://reviews.harmony-central.com/reviews/Microphone/product/GLS+Audio/ES57+and+ES58/10/1. You can see that most reviews seem to be very positive. There is one quite bad review as well. Although I would probably be inclined to think that these are pretty good, I would encourage anyone to do their research before purchasing.
~Isaac
----------
--------------
The magnificent YouTube channel of the internet user known as "isaacullah"
Last Edited by on Feb 23, 2009 12:53 PM
|
Jaybird
58 posts
Feb 23, 2009
1:20 PM
|
When used for playing harp, what is the difference in sound between the 57 and 58?
Do any "famous" harp players use either of these?
Last Edited by on Feb 23, 2009 1:21 PM
|
Preston
150 posts
Feb 23, 2009
1:44 PM
|
Well they certainly look cool. Definetely calls for more investigation. Thanks for the tip Isaac!
|
isaacullah
51 posts
Feb 23, 2009
2:02 PM
|
@Jaybird
They are both "instrument" mics, and therefore both have fairly "flat" frequency response. Such a mic won't change the eq of the sound you feed it, leaving you free to shape your tone the way that you want to with whatever controls you have available (stompbox eq's, tone knobs on amps, etc). Many harp players prefer the 57 (ie. Jason Ricci, etc.) for some reason reason. The main differnce is in the shape of the cover, which has an effect both on the PATTERN of sound pick-up and, perhaps, on the tone. Both are billed as cardiod which means that they are supposed to only pick up sounds from a "field" that is IN FRONT of the mic, but in practices, some cardiod patterns are wider and others are narrower. I would suspect that the 58, with it's classic round "ball" head would have a slightly wider cardiod pattern than the 57 that has a narrow head. I would think that they have essentially the same element inside (but cannot confirm this), so the main differnce would come down to pick up pattern and the way it sits in your hand...
Myself, I would probably prefer the 57 because I like a narrower field of pickup. But it's really a matter of opinion, and really just figuring out what suits YOU the best... Here is a good source of info on differnt types of mics and their potential use for amplifying harmonica: http://www.angelfire.com/music/harmonica/ampdmics.html#top including the sm-58 and 57.
----------
--------------
The magnificent YouTube channel of the internet user known as "isaacullah"
Last Edited by on Feb 23, 2009 2:13 PM
|
Miles Dewar
189 posts
Feb 23, 2009
2:52 PM
|
The sm 58 has a ball end, while the sm57 has a stick end. I have an sm58 right now that i modified to be a stick mic by taking off the ball and putting on a bar cover. Without the ball, the mic will be more responsive to chuck chucks, puh, and teeth clacking sounds, instead of the ball that causes the air to not reach the mic.
----------
---Go Bears!!! (Richard Dent for Hall of Fame)---
|
Train-train
20 posts
Feb 23, 2009
4:17 PM
|
The info above is correct, no difference between elements, just screen covers.
As to the use of real 57 and 58s vs. the fake ones, I think the fake one hold their own. I have done stage work for an auditorium and bands for many years. I defiantly will use real 57 and 58s for the professional acts that I have done. Its a branding thing. Professionals expect exactly what they want.
But microphones will start to age and wear. I have been fortunate enough to have went through many 57 and 58s. When you start to sound check them side by side, you'll begin to hear particular things from individual mics. You would not notice them unless you are checking side by side, and we are talking very subtle differences here.
I have three sets of fake 57 and 58s that I use for my own uses. I have sound checked them side by side real ones. I would have to say that they sound as good, maybe slightly more presence. Not enough to notice given separate sources on the same stage.
The main thing is that if you got a performer who has used real 57 and 58s, they will notice that the fake ones are not as heavy and that (as for my fake ones) they are slightly larger that the real ones. The difference is about 5\16" and the tapper of the body is slightly different. Someone who makes a living with this equipment will notice fakes. Sound wise, it will fool them.
|
Buzadero
340 posts
Apr 14, 2010
3:30 PM
|
I don't have trigger pull authorization level.
However, in my volunteer capacity as spotter, I say crosshair this TB34 and dispatch with prejudice.
Someone fire when ready.
----------
~Buzadero
Underwater Janitor, Patriot
|
Greg Heumann
395 posts
Apr 14, 2010
6:38 PM
|
Agree with what's been said, except for the ad on the web page "Just like SM57". Not. I've had clone 57's through my shop. They do not sound the same. You do tend to get what you pay for. Plus Shure comes with 2 year warranty and you can use them as hammers - they're incredibly hard to hurt.
But for $30 - hell, just try one - if you really need to save the $69 it would take you to upgrade to the real thing.
I'm not sure about the "Shure engineer" article but I look at these elements each and every day and they do not look the same under the covers. The 58 is cleaner and doesn't dirty up as much when cupped. MAYbe this is because it is hard to cup the ball well, but I do not think so. I believe the elements are different - although they may share some components.
----------
/Greg
BlowsMeAway Productions
BlueState - my band
Bluestate on iTunes
|
congaron
821 posts
Apr 14, 2010
8:34 PM
|
There is a guy on harmony central with some serious credentials who says they are not the same element.
Still, I wonder about the cheap knockoffs for harp mics too. They are inferior for PA in GBF, from everything I've read on prosoundweb and harmony central, but who knows? Those old mics little walter and those guys used were inferior PA mics in every way to the modern ones. Maybe they would make a cheaper custom mic base alternative. Have you made any Greg?
|
Greg Heumann
396 posts
Apr 15, 2010
8:41 AM
|
I don't make elements but I am not sure I understand your question. You are correct though that sometimes things that make modern mics "good" from an engineering perspective work against us if we want an amplified sound - high headroom and extended frequency response being the key examples. Nevertheless I have come across and even bought a few of these dirt-cheap clone-vocal mics - and they simply suck.
----------
/Greg
BlowsMeAway Productions
BlueState - my band
Bluestate on iTunes
|
XHarp
359 posts
Apr 15, 2010
9:15 AM
|
Correction here. Sm58's are considered and marketed as vocal mics (in fact, the most popular vocal mic ever) and 57's are instrument mics.
You see most sound guys using 57's on stands in front of amps or pointed at the fret board of acoustic guitars.
Excerpt taken from the Home Recording Forum.
...the SM58 has a slight peak at around 2KHz whereas the SM57 is flat. This gives a little extra presence for vocals and is why the SM58 is considered more of a vocal mic.....
Had a few clones myself and I can say that they are not the same. They sound flatter and will enhance either the highs or lows (it cannot be anticipated what you get) but very rarely will they cover the entire spectrum as well.
Go with the better quality when it comes to microphones or if money is the issue, go the McGiver route for a home built, save the labour costs and pay up for the better parts.
That's my $.02 worth.
----------
"Keep it in your mouth" - XHarp
Last Edited by on Apr 15, 2010 9:16 AM
|
congaron
824 posts
Apr 15, 2010
12:21 PM
|
Greg- Just wondering if you ever made a custom mic using an element from a shure knockoff?
|
MrVerylongusername
1066 posts
Apr 15, 2010
12:45 PM
|
Here's what I mentioned reading - my memory was a little hazy, it's a forum thread, not an 'article', but otherwise it's as I described.
http://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=12391
Bruce Bartlett's credentials check out. I guess it might be someone posing as him, but why they'd do that I don't know.
No axe to grind here, so make of this what you will.
|
congaron
825 posts
Apr 15, 2010
4:02 PM
|
Here's something fun to do:
http://www.oktavamodshop.com/product_info.php?cPath=1_47&products_id=115.
If you are going to try these mics anyway, you may as well do some real experimenting with them. You may stumble onto "your sound" with minimal investment.
|
Greg Heumann
398 posts
Apr 15, 2010
9:26 PM
|
Bruce Bartlett said the mics are "essentially the same". Not "the same". They have different elements, different heads, different dimensions, different pop screens, different proximity effect. All of this was pretty much said there too. They might have the same diaphragm, which was also suggested - but that is only one component of the actual sound-making components of the element. They DO have similar frequency response curves, but then, so do most modern vocal mics.
They aren't the same. In the Real World, they are Very Different when it comes to harmonica, especially if hand-held.
----------
/Greg
BlowsMeAway Productions
BlueState - my band
Bluestate on iTunes
Last Edited by on Apr 16, 2010 8:22 AM
|
XHarp
363 posts
Apr 16, 2010
11:44 AM
|
Greg, your experience speaks volumes on mics so if these were the only two, would you use the 58 or the 57 for harp? or is it more complicated then that?
-------
"Keep it in your mouth" - XHarp
|
Greg Heumann
400 posts
Apr 17, 2010
10:46 AM
|
X - it is easy if you tell me what kind of music you play. If you play country, jazz, bluegrass, classical - largely acoustic styles you want amplified accurately, then you want an SM58. If you want a warm clean tone in free air with the ability to crunch it up and overdrive an amp for Chicago blues by cupping the mic, then the SM57 (or its close cousin & predecessor the 545) is the better choice.
----------
/Greg
BlowsMeAway Productions
BlueState - my band
Bluestate on iTunes
|
Joe_L
173 posts
Apr 18, 2010
8:09 PM
|
Personally, if was was going to plug the microphone into an amplifier, I would prefer a 545 to an SM57 or and SM58.
In Chicago, twenty five years ago, the vocal mic of choice in Blues bars was the SM57. It was replaced by the SM58.
|
