I have a regular client - a 4 piece classic rock band, where all 4 sing. I provide Beta 58a for all of them, but the drummer has told me he prefers a Beta 57a, because it has a better pattern for rejection of his kit. They are both super cardioid, right? Should I get him a Beta 57a or help him understand that both have similar cardioid patterns?
Beta 57a vs. Beta 58a for vocals
- Thread starter Eric Valenzuela
- Start date
Re: Beta 57a vs. Beta 58a for vocals
The only difference between the 2 is the shape of the grille. The flat front of the 57 allows the user to get closer to the capsule, and get more proximity effect and gain.
The only difference between the 2 is the shape of the grille. The flat front of the 57 allows the user to get closer to the capsule, and get more proximity effect and gain.
Re: Beta 57a vs. Beta 58a for vocals
That being said. If your getting paid enough maybe its worth it to make the drummer happy.
~:-D~:grin:
That being said. If your getting paid enough maybe its worth it to make the drummer happy.
~:-D~:grin:Re: Beta 57a vs. Beta 58a for vocals
Here is a comparison of the two mics, from recordinghacks.com.
The mics have pretty similar response. They are both super cardioid. I don't own a Beta 58. I have a couple Beta 57a mics. They sound a little bright to my ear, but the chart shows they are no brighter than the Beta 58. A couple artists I've seen using them as vocal mics (off the top of my head) are John Mayer for lead vocal and AC/DC for backing.
I sing a lot. I think I'd be okay using a Beta 57a for my vocal mic.
Here is a comparison of the two mics, from recordinghacks.com.
The mics have pretty similar response. They are both super cardioid. I don't own a Beta 58. I have a couple Beta 57a mics. They sound a little bright to my ear, but the chart shows they are no brighter than the Beta 58. A couple artists I've seen using them as vocal mics (off the top of my head) are John Mayer for lead vocal and AC/DC for backing.
I sing a lot. I think I'd be okay using a Beta 57a for my vocal mic.
Re: Beta 57a vs. Beta 58a for vocals
Hi Eric,
Here are Shure's published polar patterns for both mics. It's obvious that the 57a has a much tighter hypercardioid pattern at 10KHz. Your drummer probably appreciates its rejection of his cymbals. FWIW, I've been using both of these mics since their debut, and my ears agree with the patterns shown here. Regardless, Ben gave the best advice above.
57a
58a
Craig,
As was explained to you here http://soundforums.net/junior-varsity/5218-shure-beta-87-c.html#post37856, there is much, much more that determines a mic's sound than just the frequency response curve. It is useful info, but alone does not adequately describe a mic. Different mics with identical response curves can sound completely different to a listener. In the case of the 57a vs. 58a, even Shure acknowledges here Beta 57A and Beta 58A Comparison that the grille difference makes these mics sound different.
Hi Eric,
Here are Shure's published polar patterns for both mics. It's obvious that the 57a has a much tighter hypercardioid pattern at 10KHz. Your drummer probably appreciates its rejection of his cymbals. FWIW, I've been using both of these mics since their debut, and my ears agree with the patterns shown here. Regardless, Ben gave the best advice above.
57a
58a
Craig,
As was explained to you here http://soundforums.net/junior-varsity/5218-shure-beta-87-c.html#post37856, there is much, much more that determines a mic's sound than just the frequency response curve. It is useful info, but alone does not adequately describe a mic. Different mics with identical response curves can sound completely different to a listener. In the case of the 57a vs. 58a, even Shure acknowledges here Beta 57A and Beta 58A Comparison that the grille difference makes these mics sound different.
Re: Beta 57a vs. Beta 58a for vocals
That's good information. Thank you. Yes, I understand the way the mic reacts can be slightly different at different points around the microphone. I'll have my drummer bring his Beta 58 for a comparison against the Beta 57a. But the frequency response, when singing straight into the mic is represented in the response charts. You're telling me the test isn't accurate?
That's good information. Thank you. Yes, I understand the way the mic reacts can be slightly different at different points around the microphone. I'll have my drummer bring his Beta 58 for a comparison against the Beta 57a. But the frequency response, when singing straight into the mic is represented in the response charts. You're telling me the test isn't accurate?
Re: Beta 57a vs. Beta 58a for vocals
Hi Craig,
You're right that the the frequency response curve in your example is an accurate representation of the response on-axis, and gives valuable information about that single parameter. However, other less easily quantifiable parameters can make a different mic with the exact same on-axis frequency response curve sound completely different. I'll elaborate.
Harshness is a great example. A mic that people describe as smooth may show the same frequency response curve as another, but have a different diaphragm damping factor in the 2.5KHz to 6.3KHz range, altering the waveforms at those frequencies.
Resonances inside the microphone body and grille also drastically shape the sound, and are somewhat revealed by those very small bumps and valleys in a frequency response curve. Sound waves reflecting and refracting around the mechanical structures of the mic cause destructive interference effects that are far too subtle to appear on the curve, but can be perfectly audible.
Another way that on-axis frequency response curves can be misleading is when we fail to compare two microphones' off-axis frequency response curves along with their on-axis curves. I mean in addition to the polar pattern images like those I posted above. All of the signals entering the sides and back of the capsules significantly affect the overall sound of the mics, even when the sound source is primarily on-axis.
It all just goes to show that the very best instruments for analyzing a mic are located on either side of our heads. A graph will give us a rough sketch of the big picture, usually just enough to expose gross inadequacies or to help determine a mic's general suitability for a given source. The polar patterns shown above are a perfect example of that. But when we're splitting hairs about professional level equipment, our ears and brains (and those of our friends and colleagues) usually trump the test data.
Hi Craig,
You're right that the the frequency response curve in your example is an accurate representation of the response on-axis, and gives valuable information about that single parameter. However, other less easily quantifiable parameters can make a different mic with the exact same on-axis frequency response curve sound completely different. I'll elaborate.
Harshness is a great example. A mic that people describe as smooth may show the same frequency response curve as another, but have a different diaphragm damping factor in the 2.5KHz to 6.3KHz range, altering the waveforms at those frequencies.
Resonances inside the microphone body and grille also drastically shape the sound, and are somewhat revealed by those very small bumps and valleys in a frequency response curve. Sound waves reflecting and refracting around the mechanical structures of the mic cause destructive interference effects that are far too subtle to appear on the curve, but can be perfectly audible.
Another way that on-axis frequency response curves can be misleading is when we fail to compare two microphones' off-axis frequency response curves along with their on-axis curves. I mean in addition to the polar pattern images like those I posted above. All of the signals entering the sides and back of the capsules significantly affect the overall sound of the mics, even when the sound source is primarily on-axis.
It all just goes to show that the very best instruments for analyzing a mic are located on either side of our heads. A graph will give us a rough sketch of the big picture, usually just enough to expose gross inadequacies or to help determine a mic's general suitability for a given source. The polar patterns shown above are a perfect example of that. But when we're splitting hairs about professional level equipment, our ears and brains (and those of our friends and colleagues) usually trump the test data.
Re: Beta 57a vs. Beta 58a for vocals
Looks like I'll be buying some 58 grills for my Beta 57a mics.
Looks like I'll be buying some 58 grills for my Beta 57a mics.
That is better than letting the singer drum.
In my youth it seemed like every singer I knew just had to get on the kit during every break in practice. It was rarely (never) good.
Re: Beta 57a vs. Beta 58a for vocals
Also note that according to tests run by Neumann, the polar pattern of many mics changes as the distance between the mic and the source (such as a face) is reduced. So a mic may look to be like a bleed resistant on paper, but it may not be on stage.
Also note that according to tests run by Neumann, the polar pattern of many mics changes as the distance between the mic and the source (such as a face) is reduced. So a mic may look to be like a bleed resistant on paper, but it may not be on stage.
Re: Beta 57a vs. Beta 58a for vocals
...so if the drummer wore a fuzzy ski mask... it might reduce feedback to the vocal mic?
...so if the drummer wore a fuzzy ski mask... it might reduce feedback to the vocal mic?
Re: Beta 57a vs. Beta 58a for vocals
And yet many successful singers were drummers. Lou Graham, Steve Perry, Steve Tyler.
And yet many successful singers were drummers. Lou Graham, Steve Perry, Steve Tyler.
Re: Beta 57a vs. Beta 58a for vocals
Singing drummers may be classified as a "noise source", but human singers include lips, mouth and nasal cavities, and often reflective eyeglasses and hats, all of which have a completely different response curve than a simple noise source.
As has been mentioned before, the biggest difference between the microphones from a singing application is the distance from the capsule to lips, a Beta 57 is about 15 mm, the Beta 58 is 22 mm.
Halving the distance would be a 6 dB increase in signal to noise, the difference between the two is probably greater than 3 dB.
If you have a close look at vocal microphones noted for "rejection", one thing they all have in common is the diaphragm is located very close to the wind screen.
Prior to there being so many options for "hypercardioid" mics, Rocky Holman would "modify" SM 58s for his hard rock singers, using a brick to squash the grill flat to very near the capsule diaphragm.
Looked kind of like a Beyer M-88 if you did it right, and around an instant 6 dB of "rejection" compared to a normal SM-58.
Beta 58 screens are a much harder metal, they don't bend like the SM-58, one of the reasons they can break the element when thrown on a hard surface, while the deformed 58 screen absorbs the impact.
Art
Tests are done with a noise source at a specified distance from the microphone.
Singing drummers may be classified as a "noise source", but human singers include lips, mouth and nasal cavities, and often reflective eyeglasses and hats, all of which have a completely different response curve than a simple noise source.
As has been mentioned before, the biggest difference between the microphones from a singing application is the distance from the capsule to lips, a Beta 57 is about 15 mm, the Beta 58 is 22 mm.
Halving the distance would be a 6 dB increase in signal to noise, the difference between the two is probably greater than 3 dB.
If you have a close look at vocal microphones noted for "rejection", one thing they all have in common is the diaphragm is located very close to the wind screen.
Prior to there being so many options for "hypercardioid" mics, Rocky Holman would "modify" SM 58s for his hard rock singers, using a brick to squash the grill flat to very near the capsule diaphragm.
Looked kind of like a Beyer M-88 if you did it right, and around an instant 6 dB of "rejection" compared to a normal SM-58.
Beta 58 screens are a much harder metal, they don't bend like the SM-58, one of the reasons they can break the element when thrown on a hard surface, while the deformed 58 screen absorbs the impact.
Art
Re: Beta 57a vs. Beta 58a for vocals
Hey Guys!
I'm a big fan of the Beta 57a on vocals.
However I'm having a nightmare. Our singer is quite a spitty singer and the mic is getting swamped and is having to be switched out mid show. Could be something to take in to consideration if your singer is like that. I have started using winter coat waterproofing spray to re waterproof the grills. the Beta58 defiantly handles it better but out singer likes the proximity effect on his vocals on the 57.
Kim
Hey Guys!
I'm a big fan of the Beta 57a on vocals.
However I'm having a nightmare. Our singer is quite a spitty singer and the mic is getting swamped and is having to be switched out mid show. Could be something to take in to consideration if your singer is like that. I have started using winter coat waterproofing spray to re waterproof the grills. the Beta58 defiantly handles it better but out singer likes the proximity effect on his vocals on the 57.
Kim
Re: Beta 57a vs. Beta 58a for vocals
Not true.
You just need applicable and accurate data and the ability to interpret it correctly.
Not true.
You just need applicable and accurate data and the ability to interpret it correctly.
Re: Beta 57a vs. Beta 58a for vocals
But when we're splitting hairs about professional level equipment, our ears and brains (and those of our friends and colleagues) usually trump the test data.
I hear you....
But when we're splitting hairs about professional level equipment, our ears and brains (and those of our friends and colleagues) usually trump the test data.
I hear you....
Re: Beta 57a vs. Beta 58a for vocals
I completely agree with you in principle, but it's not that simple in the real world of working engineers.
1) So if it doesn't sound good to your ears but purportedly applicable and accurate data says that it should, you will go ahead and use it anyway? :?~:-?~:???:
2) Good luck getting applicable, accurate, and complete data from most manufacturers' spec sheets.
I completely agree with you in principle, but it's not that simple in the real world of working engineers.
1) So if it doesn't sound good to your ears but purportedly applicable and accurate data says that it should, you will go ahead and use it anyway? :?~:-?~:???:
2) Good luck getting applicable, accurate, and complete data from most manufacturers' spec sheets.