If you’ve been involved with audio for any length of time, there’s a good chance you’ve used a Shure SM58. It’s the workhorse of the live sound world, and it’s not a bad mic. But how does it sound in the studio?
Typically, when you think about recording vocals in a studio, you picture the singer in front of a nice large-diaphragm condenser microphone. Condenser mics are great, but is it ever appropriate to use a dynamic mic to record vocals?
Condenser mics are typically very sensitive. They pick up all the detail and nuance of a voice. They also pick up a lot of things that you may NOT want to hear in your recording. For example, if you have a noisy room, or if your room isn’t acoustically treated, a condenser mic will likely capture all of these along with the singer’s voice.
A dynamic mic, on the other hand, doesn’t pick up nearly the amount of detail as a condenser, and its frequency response doesn’t go nearly as high, but it has this raw, organic quality to it. It doesn’t sound “pristine” per se, but it can still sound amazing.
Also, since a dynamic microphone isn’t as sensitive as a condenser, it tends to pick up less of your room, which is great for us home studio folks. We don’t have perfect rooms. (Come on, just admit it.)
If you spend much time on forums such as Gearslutz or Harmony Central, it won’t have to look hard to find someone talking about the Shure SM7B. When anyone asks a question about a good mic for recording vocals in a home studio, almost inevitably someone will suggest the SM7B.
I’ve had the privilege of using the SM7B in my home studio for the last few weeks. The other day I thought to myself, “I do like the sound of the SM7B, but I wonder how it compares to the SM58?” I’d never thought to use the SM58 for recording vocals. That would be “amateur,” I thought.
So I broke out both mics and set them up tonight to do a mini shootout. As you can see from the picture above, I placed the SM58 just above the SM7B, and I removed the windscreens from both mics. After that I set up a pop filter approximately four inches in front of the microphones’ capsules. Then I sang into both mics (at the same time), and recorded them directly into Pro Tools through the preamps on my 003.
The more scientific types will argue that the capsules aren’t close enough, and that the difference in position is going to prevent a true A/B comparison. That may be true, but the whole point of this little experiment was to simply see if the SM58 (at $100) could hold its own alongside the SM7B (at $350), and I thought it would be more interesting to hear how both microphones sound recording the exact same performance, rather than singing in one then going back and singing in the other.
It took a minute to get good levels, as the SM7B’s output is a few dB lower than the SM58. Once I recorded the audio, I used the Gain AudioSuite plug-in in Pro Tools to measure the RMS level of each track, and I adjusted the level of the tracks accordingly to get them to roughly the same volume.
I was quite intrigued by the results, and I’d like to get your thoughts. You can download the files here: [Right click to download]
What do you think? Leave a comment with your guess as to which is which, and I’ll post the answer in a few days.
* If you’re familiar with the SM7B, you know that it has a high-pass filter and a presence switch on the back. Both were set to flat.
UPDATE – Here are the results: SM7B vs SM58 Shoot-out Results
Its a bit difficult as i cannot listen to them simotaniously and switch between. Im also using cheap-ass earphones.
I believe 1 sounds clearer/warmer.
Mic 2 seems to pick up the room accoustics a bit more and i think i can hear other interference in it also. Perhaps this is due to the 58’s missing top?
I think (Number 1) is the (More Expensive Mic).
If you can’t hear the difference, you really shouldn’t consider yourself an audio professional. Even on a less than ideal monitoring system, the difference is huge.
Hi Brian, if you would take a look around, you’d see that this website is completely dedicated to home studio owners. I’m here to help home studio folks make better recordings out of their home studios.
If you have something helpful to add to the discussion, by all means please do so. Otherwise, comments like “you really shouldn’t consider yourself an audio professional” aren’t welcome here. From day one, Home Studio Corner has been about helping and encouraging home studio owners, not criticizing them and tearing them down. They can get plenty of that in the forums.
Thanks Brian.
Joe
Joe, I get what you are saying, and everyone has to start somewhere, but there are plenty of “studios” out there charging artists to record in their basement when they can’t even hear the difference between a 58 and an SM7. That’s not right, in my honest opinion. I’m speaking generally, not making asinine comments to any of the above.
i think mic 1 is the sm7. i use an sm7 and find that it hits the center of my head less than other dynamics. also different sources yield different results. a loud vocalist i find favors an sm7 as the diaphragm seams to take a hit nicely w/out getting to middy. i also find that the sm7 takes eq better than most mics (not as good as a ribbon). Does a 58 stack up? hell yes. there are instances where it excels. is as versatile as an sm7, no. i find my problem solving mics tend to be sm7 and re20.
You’ve got the right approach, Ryan. Thanks for the input!
This is a great shootout. We need lots more of this type. IMHO, it’s flawed only (well almost only) by one glaring omission. I particularly wanted to compare these two mics for how they handle plosives. Unfortunately, there is NOT A SINGLE P OR B to be found in the lyric of the sample vocal. In other words there is not even one syllable with a plosive in it in the whole clip. That’s a problem.
Hi Geno,
You’re right, this is definitely not a plosive test. You’ll notice that I believe I didn’t even us the foam popper stoppers that come with the microphones. I sang through a studio pop filter. The purpose of this shootout was to compare tonal qualities of the two mics, but I think you should totally do a shoot-out comparing the plosives!! That would be great!
Very interesting experiment indeed! I have been using an SM 57 myself quite frequently and I think it sounds very similar to your SM 58 with the windscreen removed. The SM 7 in your shootout sounded much warmer and more pleasant then the SM 58 with just the vocal, but as you mentioned that someone at Gearslutz pointed out how it sounds in the mix is the important thing. Personally I think the great thing about the SM 57 or 58 on vocals is that the little high mid boost is what makes the recorded vocal track be able to sit comfortably and sound up front in the mix without any EQing at all. I guess that is the main reason why so many rock vocalist like to use the SM 57/58, as the vocal track will always cut through no matter how rich or full the instrumental track is.
Regards,
D
While we’re on the subject of sm-58s being used in studio, thought you guys might enjoy this article:
http://www.mojopie.com/2008/12/shure-sm57-and-shure-sm58.html
Regards,
Shin
Cool. Thanks Shin.
Hello Joe,
I’m new to your site. Love all your articles, especially the SM7 versus the SM58. I have a question. I’m using Pro Tools 5.2.1 with M-Box for VO, yeah I know it’s old but it runs like a champ. What recommended eq settings should I use on the SM58? For me I love the way it sounds on my voice. I do have an Rode NT2A but the ease of use and acoustic treatment is not a issue with the SM58. I’m adding 4 dB on 12khz, 1 dB at 2.5KHZ and -4 around 80Hz. I appreciate any input. Oh, is the Beta 58 really worth an extra 60 dollars? Thanks Joe
Chris
Hi Chris. People swear up and down that the Beta58 is awesome. That being said, you said “I love the way it sounds on my voice,” so I wouldn’t change a thing.
As far as recommended EQ settings, unfortunately it’s different for every vocalist. You’ll have to use your ears and do what sounds best.
OK, I am now the owner of an SM7B. Thought I’d share my experience with it.
First, I was shocked by the quality control. The microphone cap inside is glued on skew, and despite having a ringclip like an SM57, the glue makes it immovable. Also, the black anodizing on the inside of the thumbscrews flakes off, and the aluminium slides over the rear switches obviously had some problems in production and the top edge of one has been made black with a felt-tip pen. The box was factory-sealed and came from a reputable German mail-order store. H’m.
Sound tests: I have a construction site over the road, so I have a ready sound source of varied dynamics and frequencies. I set up the new SM7B against my SM57 and 58 Mexico old style (1995), my SM57 and 58 new style (March 2009), and a Neumann TLM103. I removed the pop shields from both 58’s as you did.
Set flat the SM7 sounded pretty good compared to the TLM103, perhaps a bit scooped. But it got nicely into the high frequencies and sounded more natural. With the presence boost on it sounded disappointing, but it’s meant for voice, after all.
What shocked me was the variation between my SM57s and 58s. The old ones sounded dull, the old 58 even had a bass loss that made it sound like the SM7 with bass cut on. The new ones sounded brighter, with the new SM57 being the best. But quickly switching between each one revealed a presence hump that was different for each one. It was like quickly moving the frequency setting on a synthesizer bandpass filter. For example, the new SM57 heard the welding work clearly, whilst the new SM58 heard the concrete mixer motor more clearly. The old SM57 heard truck diesel motors (real low frequencies) and the old SM58 was plain muffled (yet is my favourite for male vocals, ’til now). And these mics have spend most of their lives in their bags, safely indoors.
How such extreme variations are possible is beyond me.
But the SM7 is great and works optimally with it’s standard small pop shield on (stops pops well without losing tops. The big one really does change the sound). With presence on I can record hard rock vocals with an extended SM57/58 sound but without the pop and microphone control problems. This is what I was hoping for when I ordered it.
I was pleased that my Mackie 402 VLZ3 is up to the job of amplifying the low output of the SM7. Very, very little hiss, and it has an 80Hz -18dB filter that allows me to leave the SM7 bass cut set to flat, and for the money it’s unbelievable.
Niggles aside, I have decided not to have it exchanged, so I’m pleased with my purchase. But I do sometimes wonder how much sample variance a collection of SM7s would have!
Joe, Thank you for this “shoot out.” It has helped a great deal in making some decisions about mics for a youth band I am putting together. Yep, all the comments seem spot on with 7 having a better sound but the 58 is just fine for the application I am looking at; I guess it comes down to what your goals are and what enviroment you are working in when it comes to mic decisions. Be Blessed,
tmacx
Hey Joe, I’m a audio tech university student in my last year, and although that sounds like I should be getting experienced with mics, that would not be the case!
But in my opinion, the sm7b sounds a lot warmer than the sm58 (If not already suggested, respectively they’re recordin 1 & 2), although the quality of the 58 is still good for the price. I personally can’t see $250 difference, yes maybe $100 but not for home studio recordings. I believe the money could be spent in other areas.
Joe
I completely agree. Thanks Joe!
Aargh! I meant bass CUT, of course!
Hi Sylvia. Yep. I found that out after doing the test. While it does make a difference, the point of the test was to show how similar both mics really are. Yes, I would choose the SM7B, but the 58 really does hold its own!!
If you look at the SM7b manual, you will notice that in order to hear the sound of the capsule only (without the passive shaping circuitry affecting the sound), you have to turn the bass boost off (as you have done. Flat) and the presence boost *ON* (no, it’s not intuitive). In your test you still have the passive mid-scoop connected, which gives a false impression.
The way you did your test, you may as well mid-scoop the SM58 as well.
It’s not even close. #2 sounds like a karaoke mic or something. …not good at all. #1 sounds like a professional recording before it’s been mixed. I’d put my life on #1 being the sm7b. lol The difference is like night and day. If I’m wrong, I guess I’ll be getting the sm58 in the future. Let me go check the results to see how badly I might have just embarrassed myself.
You must be one of those folks with “golden ears” to hear a night and day difference. You are indeed correct.
Well to my ears, the first mic sounds a hair “blanketted” until it opens up when you started pushing more air at the end of the piece. What’s more important is that you have proven again, it’s not the mic, the pre, the converters etc.etc. It’s the performance foremost! Nice voice man, didn’t know what to expect!
peace for ‘09 and beyond…..
Thanks! By the way, the results have been posted. I just added the link to the end of the article above. Here it is.
Thanks, Joe, great little site you got here, i forgot about this test, but came back today with your 58 – D5 test, thanks for all the hard work, ill be back again, ill have to get you on twitter i think, im surfing here via http://www.musformation.com/
Thanks Aaron!! I’m glad we found each other.
1= SM7B 2=SM58 The second it sounds like it has less dynamics to me, more compressed, and sounds better on its own. But id like to bet that SM7b sounds a lot better in the mix, or at lest it fits better with out much tweaking. I use the 58 out of choice on nearly all my vocal tracks.
You can hear my work here, http://www.last.fm/music/Aaron+Owen+Smith
More evidence that a cheap old 58 is as pro as any large condenser, defo want to move up to the Sm7 though as it has the warmth of a condenser but the aggression of a dynamic.
Thanks Aaron. I just got a chance to listen to your tracks. Very good stuff. Thanks for sharing!
I would like to have heard these in a raw, levels-only mix.
SM7b typically sounds bland by itself, but sits in mixes unbelievably well.
Dude…..! What’s a shakin’ Joe? I’ll take a stab at this – the 58 is mic #2
Great voice, nice pipes. Come to Atl. & lets gig.
wow!!! not a whole lot of difference. mic #1 seemed to have slightly more bass but none the less both mics were clear and would be able to sit nicely in any mix with minimal EQ. Shootouts are the best thing when considering buying a piece of gear because then you using your ears instead of emotion. thanks Joe, keep em coming.
you do realize that by removing the “basket” you’ve effectively changed the tone of the 58, right!? i mean c’mon.
Yeah, I’m not going for a super scientific approach here. I simply thought the best way to compare the two would be to sing directly into the capsule. Since the SM7B comes with a big honkin’ windscreen, it made sense to take that off. After that, I figured it would make sense to take the basket off the 58 as well.
To me it seems like a more balanced comparison. I think it’s still fair to say some folks would record it without the basket on.
I also cannot hear a 250$ dif. But I’ll say that #1 is the SM7 and the #2 is 58.
Answers plzzzzzz ^_^
You do have a really good voice. I wanna hear a cd by Joe Gilder.
Also, you have a good voice.
#1 Has to be the SM7B. It sounds vastly better than #2 to me.
Looks like I might wanna consider adding this to my collection someday.
I can’t tell the difference. Both sound great. It could be that I’m also having to listen to my computer fan as well.
#1 edgier
#2 warmer
Both excellent…
As is the timbre of the vocalist’s voice. Nice.
after listening back to back a few times from my studio monitors, based on which vocals sounded more detailed & clearer (althought there wasn’t a clear difference surprisingly) i think the sm7 was #1 & the sm58 was #2
great comparison concept, would be a good example of your “The Point of Diminishing Returns” article.. hope to see more like these in the future!
#1 SM7
#2 SM58
#2 seems to have a little more presence over number one. (Sm7 is typically described as “flat” and “smooth”) One the loud “treading water” lyric near the end, #1 seems to compress the vocal level more, too. Of course these symptoms could simply be because your lips/mouth were more in line with the #2 mic capsule…
Regardless, these mics sound very similar. I think only minor eq and compression would bring #2 to sound like #1 and vice versa.
Nice vocal work BTW. Glad to hear one of these shoot-outs done proper AND with a decent source for once!
JP
“Nice vocal work BTW. Glad to hear one of these shoot-outs done proper AND with a decent source for once!”
I really do have to agree with this thought.
Its really hard to tell the difference. My guess would be #1 the SM7b and #2 the 58.
I would guess #1 is the SM7B, #2 is the SM58. I can’t really distinguish between the two on my computer monitors, except that the first mix seemed to be a little more colorful.
Two questions, though: First, when would you turn to a dynamic mic first to record vocals, over a condenser mic, if ever? Second, if you do, is it customary to remove the windscreen (I imagine that would make a noticeable difference in the recording)?
To answer your first question, really the only rule is to do what sounds best. The other day I tried recording a vocalist on the SM7B and the Sputnik (tube condenser). For that singer, the Sputnik sounded better. Just like you’d sometimes pick a C414 over a TLM103, it really depends on how the source sounds, and if it fits the song.
As far as your second question, yes, you’ll want to remove the windscreen. It won’t make a huge difference, but all that foam tends to absorb high frequencies. I used a standard pop filter for this recording, which has a minimal effect on the high end.
I’ve used the SM57, which is pretty much the SM58 without the protective mesh ball on the outside, to record vocals before. Some singers sound best on it, and some singers might be too powerful for condensers, no matter how low you turn down the gain. The ruggedness of the SM57/58 allows it to handle more energy without distortion so if you’re recording Screamo (not pop-punk like Good Charlotte), they’ll be able to handle the “angst” easier than a sensitive condenser.
I believe the SM58 to be mic one and the SM7B to be mic two. That’s just from listening on laptop speakers.
After listening in my K240’s, I’m more inclined to switch my answer. SM58 -> #2, SM7B -> #1
We’ll see….
With crummy ear buds, clip #2 sounds a little more defined…I’ll try it on my monitors this evening.
BTW – how did you have the EQ switches set on the SM-7?
The highpass filter was off, and the “presence boost” switch was set to flat.
Here’s my guess; #1 is the SM-7, #2 the 58.
Dunno which is which, but I sure as heck can’t tell a $250 difference between the two.
Of course, I’m a rook so there’s probably glaring quality differences between the two.