Shure Mics

[Alec97]

Hi

 

How good is sensitivity on the Shure pg48 compared to the sm58 for live application

 

Thanks.

[Simon Lewis]

The Shure SM48 is -57.5dBV/Pa at 1kHz, the SM58 is -54.5dBV.

[paulears]

They sound ok just a bit bigger

[jonathanhill]

The Shure SM48 is -57.5dBV/Pa at 1kHz, the SM58 is -54.5dBV.

 

Which equates to 1.6mV/Pa for the SM48 and 1.88mV/Pa for the SM58.

 

Which equates to:

 

They sound ok just a bit bigger

[Wilflet]

Hi

 

How good is sensitivity on the sure pg48 compared to the sm58 for live application

 

Thanks.

 

 

The Shure SM48 is -57.5dBV/Pa at 1kHz, the SM58 is -54.5dBV.

 

Is sensitivity actually what you mean? Surley if its for live use the pg just has the gain set very slightly higher and the difference is within the range of what you'd expect between different singers (distance from mic, volume of voice)?

 

Just seems a strange thing to ask about, not something Iv ever consciously looked at on a mic spec before buying.

by sensitivity could you possibly be talking about gain before feedback?

[Alec97]

how good is it at picking up singers that are quiet and that don't stand very close to the mic

[paulears]

Realistically - the sensitivity is not an issue because it's a nudge on the gain pot from a 58. I do have one of these in my mic stock, and often people put out the 48 instead of a 58 if they can't tell the difference in the shape, size and weight. Few people ever realise, and the sound op just eqs and sets the gain as normal. As for picking up quiet singers who are too far away? I'd find that just as difficult with any cardioid. A hyper might give you a tad more 'reach' but also require them to be on axis to a greater degree. As an all round mic, I'd not have an issue using it on most sources.To my ears it's a bit more mellow than a 58 and perhaps to those with golden ears, a little dull - but nothing a turn on the HF can't sort.

[Oldradiohand]

how good is it at picking up singers that are quiet and that don't stand very close to the mic

 

No mic is - trust us. Even highly directional mics can't be used all that far away indoors with PA. The only answer is to teach the singers to actually sing and get them to hold the mics close. After all, it's what the pros do.

[S&L]

I know opinions vary but of all the brand name mics, I find the 48 and 58 the least helpful on a small stage - i.e. they tend to need higher gain levels than other mics and any qualitatively better performance in reproduction of sound is offset by their weaker signal and wider pick up pattern.

I have had a 58 and 48 side by side to test in the past and the 48 subjectively sounded thinner and less crisp but seemed to pick up similarly. whether you will hear the difference depends on a number of factors, quality of PA, thickness of sound they are bedded into. but if you have a week voice infront either mic, while no mic will cure the problem, shure mics are the wrong way to go (unless you are spending money on a 58 beta)

I let go a pair of 58's recently and now only have a 48 in the bottom of the box never comes out to play and no doubt I shall offload in due course.

I did a prog rock show at easter (marillion/floyd/genesis cover bands) in a big room with quality PA and desk - I got some huge compliments and inquires about some of the mics I was using, specifically for saxophone, guitar cabs, male and female backing vocals - I used red5 rvd30'S on all of them which are cheap, reasonable but not detailed, hypercardioid with a good healthy level coming off the mic. the ONLY feedback during the 6 hour show was with one sm58 that one singer insisted on using. other vocal mics were red5's sennheiser and 58 beta's

my point being that even in experienced hands 58's and 48's are feedback happy and you can get a mic that better suits your needs for the price of a 58 or less from elsewhere.

[david.elsbury]

. the ONLY feedback during the 6 hour show was with one sm58 that one singer insisted on using.

Would it be fair to say, if you inserted a graphic EQ (or a parametric) on the channel, and/or rung out the monitors a bit more, you wouldn't have had the feedback? I'm sure that there could be factors against this, such as it may have been a festival show, or no soundcheck, but to blame a mic for feedback seems to be a little bit of a case of "the bad carpenter blames his tools"? ;) :)

 

Hoping you'll take this in the spirit of which it is meant :)

David

[Wilflet]

. the ONLY feedback during the 6 hour show was with one sm58 that one singer insisted on using.

I'm sure that there could be factors against this, such as it may have been a festival show

 

Even on a festival show it shouldnt be a problem, I tell people if theyre using their own vocal mics get it to me at monitors for the start of the changeover, and I'll have a shout through the wedges while Im waiting on backline doing whatever it is backline guys do.

 

Back on topic:

Why are they far away from the mic?

Are we talking one singer per mic with awful technique - in which case you could spend thousands on better mics and still not get it as good as making them sing closer.

Or are we talking far away because your trying to share to few mics between too many singers?

[Bobbsy]

how good is it at picking up singers that are quiet and that don't stand very close to the mic

 

If you have somebody quiet and too far from the mic, I wouldn't be considering either the SM48 or SM58. Both are at their best with screaming mic swallowers.

[S&L]

Would it be fair to say, if you inserted a graphic EQ (or a parametric) on the channel, and/or rung out the monitors a bit more, you wouldn't have had the feedback? I'm sure that there could be factors against this, such as it may have been a festival show, or no soundcheck, but to blame a mic for feedback seems to be a little bit of a case of "the bad carpenter blames his tools"?

yes it would be fair to say that you can ring out monitors for most mics and as it happens it wasn't an issue at sound check and not a huge issue during the show - but that's missing the point - the point is of the twenty odd instrument and vocal mics littering the stage the SM58 was the ONLY one giving problems - i.e. it is more feedback happy than most other popular mics. if ONE mic model causes a problem and other mics don't, that's NOT a sound check procedural problem, that's a mic performing worse than it's colleagues.

edited to add, monitors were martin LE1200S, - we had a red5 rvd30 within a 3 foot or so of the monitor for sax, two within 4 ft or so for backing vocals, 58 beta's ditto and lead vocals, sennhesier wireless lead vocal all over the place, and a dozen or so assorted drum mics in close proximity to the monitors. we thought we would have to ring out monitors but didn't have to do a damned thing all day with them - apart from the sm58 which caught us by surprise during the performance.

[Wilflet]

Its only safe to say that one mic was more feedback happy than others if they we're all at the same volume in the wedges (or more accurately had the same ratio of level to proximity)- realistically you never found out how feedback happy your hihat mic was as its not in the wedges majority of the time, on the vast majority of stages lead vocal is going to be the closest to feeding because

A) its traditionally wanted louder than any other channel

B) its far more likley to be mobile and experience different enviroments (on axis to wedges, off axis, by the sidefill, ontop of the pa), if your guitar cab mics are moving that much you've probably got bigger problems.

This is true of any vocal mic.

Its entirely possible your 58 user was either also the one who wanted it loudest or just got lucky and found that strange place to stand where somthing weird happens.

 

(for the record I by no means champion the 58- my personal mic stock consists of all AKG- D5, D7, C5, D330- and when Im out with hire companies take 935/945 over 58s. Just saying from the situation you've described you cant eliminate enough variables to say the mic is the most feedback happy)

[S&L]

Its only safe to say that one mic was more feedback happy than others if they we're all at the same volume in the wedges (or more accurately had the same ratio of level to proximity)- realistically you never found out how feedback happy your hihat mic was as its not in the wedges majority of the time, on the vast majority of stages lead vocal is going to be the closest to feeding because

A) its traditionally wanted louder than any other channel

B) its far more likley to be mobile and experience different enviroments (on axis to wedges, off axis, by the sidefill, ontop of the pa), if your guitar cab mics are moving that much you've probably got bigger problems.

This is true of any vocal mic.

Its entirely possible your 58 user was either also the one who wanted it loudest or just got lucky and found that strange place to stand where somthing weird happens.

 

(for the record I by no means champion the 58- my personal mic stock consists of all AKG- D5, D7, C5, D330- and when Im out with hire companies take 935/945 over 58s. Just saying from the situation you've described you cant eliminate enough variables to say the mic is the most feedback happy)

 

I take the general point, it was an obvious example from recent memory to illustrate a point. often with mics that I work with long term, when I have down time I will ring out monitors and listen to differences between mics in the rehearsal unit we keep (a fairly dead room) - I find broadly similar results. for the show in question the 58 WAS a lead vocal mic but no more mobile than for other lead vocal mics used that day or backing vocal mics come to that which for tone band were very mobile. I would stand by my comment and my experience that 58 mics are more feedback happy than many other mics while taking your point that my opinions are based on subjective 'in the field' use rather than a systematic lab like test.

all this, I say as much as anything to give the original poster my insight into use of 58's vs other mics. the poster should also know there a folk on this site with far more experience than I!