Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which Is Better For Live Singing - Shure SM58 or Shure Bet..

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
September 2, 2004 4:13:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I posted earlier this summer as to aids for better singing for someone
like myself who cannot sing, but at least wants to try at home only. I
realize it is for my own entertainment.

Some kind folks in this group advised that the best microphone was a
Shure SM58 for me to get. Upon looking for the SM58, I discovered
that Shure offers a more pricey Beta 58. I don't know if this more
pricey mike is worth the difference.

Questions.

Is the Shure Beta 58 worth the extra money?

What are the differences between the Shure SM58 and Shure Beta58?

With newsgroup members knowing that I can't sing, which microphone
will best enhance my lack luster voice? The SM58 or Beta58?

What voice enhancing effects gear work best with each mike? I will
not be performing professionally. It is soley for my own
entertainment, so I am not going to spend thousands for a pro studio,
just a home amateur studio type arrangement.

Thank you in advance to all who generously care to share their
insights.

Mack
Anonymous
September 2, 2004 9:21:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mack" <bigmack_usa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:16e50353.0409021113.3a3c20b@posting.google.com
> I posted earlier this summer as to aids for better singing for someone
> like myself who cannot sing, but at least wants to try at home only. I
> realize it is for my own entertainment.
>
> Some kind folks in this group advised that the best microphone was a
> Shure SM58 for me to get. Upon looking for the SM58, I discovered
> that Shure offers a more pricey Beta 58. I don't know if this more
> pricey mike is worth the difference.

> Questions.

> Is the Shure Beta 58 worth the extra money?

Possibly, if you need what it does.

> What are the differences between the Shure SM58 and Shure Beta58?

The SM58 is a true cardioid with a null on the back side, while the
"supercardioid" (hypercardioid?) SM58 does not have a null on the back side,
but has better directionality at let's say 45 degrees on either side. The
SM58 is perhaps a little rougher above 4 KHz, not that either of them is
anything like flat.

If a vocalist stands some distance from floor monitors and can conveninently
point the mike's tail into the throats of the drivers in the monitors, then
the SM 57 would be the mic of choice. If the vocalist stands with the
monitor up pretty close, and points the tail of the mic towards the
listeners, then the Beta 59 would be the better choice.
September 3, 2004 12:08:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

They're supposed to help against feedback, which is probably a good thing in
a karoke situation. And they have a pretty blue ring. I know of no other
difference.


"Mack" <bigmack_usa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:16e50353.0409021113.3a3c20b@posting.google.com...
> I posted earlier this summer as to aids for better singing for someone
> like myself who cannot sing, but at least wants to try at home only. I
> realize it is for my own entertainment.
>
> Some kind folks in this group advised that the best microphone was a
> Shure SM58 for me to get. Upon looking for the SM58, I discovered
> that Shure offers a more pricey Beta 58. I don't know if this more
> pricey mike is worth the difference.
>
> Questions.
>
> Is the Shure Beta 58 worth the extra money?
>
> What are the differences between the Shure SM58 and Shure Beta58?
>
> With newsgroup members knowing that I can't sing, which microphone
> will best enhance my lack luster voice? The SM58 or Beta58?
>
> What voice enhancing effects gear work best with each mike? I will
> not be performing professionally. It is soley for my own
> entertainment, so I am not going to spend thousands for a pro studio,
> just a home amateur studio type arrangement.
>
> Thank you in advance to all who generously care to share their
> insights.
>
> Mack
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 1:55:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2 Sep 2004 12:13:47 -0700, Mack <bigmack_usa@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I posted earlier this summer as to aids for better singing for someone
> like myself who cannot sing, but at least wants to try at home only. I
> realize it is for my own entertainment.
>
> Some kind folks in this group advised that the best microphone was a
> Shure SM58 for me to get. Upon looking for the SM58, I discovered
> that Shure offers a more pricey Beta 58. I don't know if this more
> pricey mike is worth the difference.
>

For your own entertainment, don't bother with a microphone. A
microphone can't make you sound better, only louder.

Plus you need all the auxilary equipment.

You wanna sing better, become a better singer. Learning how to breathe
can make you at least choir-grade.

People sang for thousands of hears without microphones. Go for it.
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 3:22:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mack wrote:

> Some kind folks in this group advised that the best microphone was a
> Shure SM58 for me to get.

The SM58 is *very* dated design with indifferent performance. It's best
characteristic is its mechanical durability.

Clever marketing has given it a reputation beyond its abilities.

Also - too many ppl accept the advice to buy an SM58 without considering
any alternatives. It's an easy choice of indifferent quality that few ppl
will critice you for since they most likely bought one too.


> Upon looking for the SM58, I discovered
> that Shure offers a more pricey Beta 58. I don't know if this more
> pricey mike is worth the difference.

It's a bit better.

There are *much* better vocal mics around. Expect some suggestions.


Graham
September 3, 2004 11:39:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> For your own entertainment, don't bother with a microphone. A
> microphone can't make you sound better, only louder.
>
> Plus you need all the auxilary equipment.
>
First, thanks to all thus far for your advice. I have to use a
microphone, because I want to record music I've written for my own
entertainment mostly. I mainly play electric guitar, bass and
keyboards. I have an old Yamaha MT4X 4 track multi-track recorder that
I got used for my initial recording with whatever other signal
processing gear members of the group could suggest that I need, for
example a good mike and whatever other audio processing gear I can
afford. I realize I have to work on the voice end as well.

Even when I find a voice coach, I will never be a good singer. God
just didn't give me the natural gifts to cultivate, but at least I can
have some fun in trying. Perhaps we all want to do something that we
know that we can never do well, but enjoy doing it poorly LOL!

If I'm marginally successful with getting an acceptable sound for me
by using signal processors, good mike, voice coaching, etc. I'll get a
better multitrack recording unit.
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 7:20:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:5e6dnZsE1dwbE6rcRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>> What are the differences between the Shure SM58 and Shure Beta58?
>
> The SM58 is a true cardioid with a null on the back side, while the
> "supercardioid" (hypercardioid?) SM58 does not have a null on the back
> side, but has better directionality at let's say 45 degrees on either
> side. The SM58 is perhaps a little rougher above 4 KHz, not that either
> of them is anything like flat.
>
> If a vocalist stands some distance from floor monitors and can
> conveninently point the mike's tail into the throats of the drivers in the
> monitors, then the SM 57 would be the mic of choice. If the vocalist
> stands with the monitor up pretty close, and points the tail of the mic
> towards the listeners, then the Beta 59 would be the better choice.

Arny, can you clarify that post? There seem to be a couple of typos and I'm
having a hard time figuring out what you mean. (In the first paragraph in
particular, you're missing at least one instance of the word "Beta", I
think.)
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 7:20:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Walter Harley" <walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:cha246$qlf$0$216.39.172.65@theriver.com
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:5e6dnZsE1dwbE6rcRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>>> What are the differences between the Shure SM58 and Shure Beta58?

Corrected version:

>> The SM58 is a true cardioid with a null on the back side, while the
>> "supercardioid" (hypercardioid?) Beta 58 does not have a null on the
>> back side, but has better sound rejection at let's say 45 degrees on
>> either side. The SM58 is perhaps a little rougher above 4 KHz, not
>> that either of them is anything like flat.

>> If a vocalist stands some distance from floor monitors and can
>> conveninently point the mike's tail into the throats of the drivers
>> in the monitors, then the SM 57 would be the mic of choice.

>> If the
>> vocalist stands with the monitor up pretty close, and points the
>> tail of the mic towards the listeners, then the Beta 58 would be the
>> better choice.

> Arny, can you clarify that post?

Thanks for the opportunity to correct myself. I think I must have been
suffering from low blood sugar after a hard day and no supper yet, when I
posted that mess!

> There seem to be a couple of typos
> and I'm having a hard time figuring out what you mean. (In the first
> paragraph in particular, you're missing at least one instance of the
> word "Beta", I think.)

I think you got what I meant right, despite all the typos.
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 7:20:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:rMydnezJFMrQE6XcRVn-ow@comcast.com
> "Walter Harley" <walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:cha246$qlf$0$216.39.172.65@theriver.com
>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:5e6dnZsE1dwbE6rcRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>>>> What are the differences between the Shure SM58 and Shure Beta58?

> Doubly Corrected version:

>>> The SM58 is a true cardioid with a null on the back side, while the
>>> "supercardioid" (hypercardioid?) Beta 58 does not have a null on the
>>> back side, but has better sound rejection at let's say 45 degrees on
>>> either side of its back.

>>> The SM58 is perhaps a little rougher above 4 KHz, not
>>> that either of them is anything like flat.

>>> If a vocalist stands some distance from floor monitors and can
>>> conveninently point the mike's tail into the throats of the drivers
>>> in the monitors, then the SM 58 would be the mic of choice.

>>> If the
>>> vocalist stands with the monitor up pretty close, and points the
>>> tail of the mic towards the listeners, then the Beta 58 would be the
>>> better choice.
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 11:19:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mack wrote:
> With newsgroup members knowing that I can't sing, which microphone
> will best enhance my lack luster voice? The SM58 or Beta58?

I don't know that either will enhance your voice, but one of them
might complement it better than the other.

The deal is, though, it all depends on your voice. One mic might
sound great on one person and fairly bad on another, while another
mic might sound bad on the first person and great on the second.

It's kind of like clothing, actually. You can't post to a fashion
newsgroup[1] and ask, "Can anyone recommend a suit and tie for me
that will make me look really good?" You have to go try them on
and look in the mirror. Until you do that, you won't know what
looks good on you and what doesn't.

So, my best advice is get a list of microphones that are in your
price range and then go try them out and listen to them (maybe
with headphones) and see what you think.

- Logan

[1] assuming one exists; I'm not sure I want to know, though, if
it does...
!