Shure SM86 vs. SM58 vs U87i: Why the SM86 might be the perfect choice for you!

* product and video links below
The Superiority of the SM86 Microphone.
From the road-worthy condenser capsule to its tailored frequency response, I'll explore how the SM86 delivers unparalleled clarity for your vocal performance.
Condenser microphones usually require phantom power, see this video to learn more: • Phantom Power 101: Ess...
In this video you can compare the sound of the SM86, the SM58, and the Neumann U87i
00:00 - Discussion
12:21 - SM86 Demonstration
----
Invest in only the products that you truly need or will help you achieve your goals.
These Amazon product links have no additional fees or surcharges.
Referral credit from qualifying purchases helps you support this channel at no-cost to you.
Products you may be interested in:
amzn.to/3R3hU4p - Shure SM86 Cardioid Condenser Vocal Microphone
amzn.to/3T8BuPA - Shure SM58S Cardioid Dynamic Vocal Microphone with Switch
amzn.to/416t0Kv - Neumann KMS105-NI Vocalist Microphone
amzn.to/46VYpAZ - Neumann U-87Ai Large-Diaphragm Condenser Microphone

[@CompHwTipsAndTutorials]

Thanks so much for this! I've been eyeing the SM86 for a while now, as I've wanted a condenser/capacitor microphone that sounds great and is capable of being used in a more live-ish environment. Glad to hear that it's one of your favorites, and I think I'll be pulling the trigger on it here soon!

[@Barry-Watson]

Awesome! A lot of folks also choose the Shure Beta 87, which is more popular and a little bit more expensive. I find the beta 87 to be a bit edgier sounding and not as natural. Personally, I prefer the sound of the SM86. Also, I should have mentioned, I would only buy a Shure microphone from an reputable seller. Sadly, there are many counterfeit Shure microphones sold on eBay, or the grey/used market. Many of the counterfeits look very good, and can be hard for a non-expert to discern, but they usually don't sound as good as the real thing. Also Shure almost never allows retailers to sell product at major discount, so if it's a really good deal I would be suspicious. Best wishes!

[@davidleungaxiom3491]

Thanks. Your honest recommendation s are deeply appreciated

[@Barry-Watson]

My pleasure!

[@marcs3982]

I remember back in the 70s, the SM 57 and 58 were $99. Now, in 2024, they're STILL $99.. I just bought a 57 two months ago from Shure. $104.00 tax and shipping included.

[@em8969]

Great video again!!!

[@Barry-Watson]

Thanks again!

[@robertgunter7230]

Great info Barry

[@Barry-Watson]

Thanks!

[@soundgineering4771]

That is a great sound comparison. Is there any model # coding for Shure products that can indicate whether it's a Dynamic/Condenser mic and its polar pattern? Some manufacturers hide some info in their model number system.

[@Barry-Watson]

No, it doesn't seem like you can determine a whole lot about the mic just by the Shure model numbers. They have some broad categories, such as the sm series, beta series, KSM etc. But even in that case, I wouldn't say that one series microphones is always better than another. That's how it appears to me, but I don't claim to be an expert at how things work inside of Shure corp, they may have some logic behind the naming.

[@em8969]

thankyou!

[@Barry-Watson]

You're welcome!

[@soundgineering4771]

Another great video Barry!! How would you set up 4 of the 15" powered 2-way speakers and 2 of the 18" subwoofers location when you have a very odd-shaped venue that is about 2500 sq ft (about 15ft high) but is in the weird mix of an L and H letters shape? I would appreciate it if you could make a video on Room acoustics and the placement of the speaker system for a Live Band gig scene. Thanks.

[@Barry-Watson]

Heh, yeah. Predictive acoustic modeling, in an odd shaped room, with a mix of objects, surfaces, and a variable amount of sound absorbing people Is somewhat like modeling the Earth's weather system. If it was an installed system, I would spend some time filling the room with pink noise from sources at different locations, taking measurements and try to determine where to apply some acoustical control in the room, and the best locations for loudspeakers. Of course it's always best to fix the acoustical issues at the time you design the room, but rarely do we have that luxury. If you're in a band that gets booked into the venue, you don't have the time of that sort of exploration, and then I take my best guess at the moment by looking at the size of the room areas and considering approximately the wavelengths that they will support best (or too much). Above 150 Hertz you can direct the sound energy where you want it. I would reach for cabinets that have fairly narrow beam widths. For example, 60 degree horns rather than 90s. I'd rather blow the sound at the people, rather than onto the walls and have it bounce all over everywhere. The shape of the room can have a big impact on how the bass behaves, and often having one point source provides better overall LF coverage. There are situations where I will only apply power to one group of subwoofers clustered together, and the other subwoofer stack is just there for support and esthetics. If it's convenient I often try to put my subwoofers against a boundary surface rather than away from the walls. I might run smaart RTA during the show (great tool!) and try to eq down any major peaks, which helps, but you can't fix a bad system or a bad room with EQ alone. Ultimately, it may be a matter of trial and error. Get in early, try a setup, do a quick walkabout, and if it's hideous move things around a little bit. And, in the end, most of the time it's just rock and roll and I'm the only one who really cares that much. If the band is fun, loud, and the beer is cold, the crowd is usually pretty happy. If nothing gets broken, there's a happy vibe, and I get paid, then I'm usually pretty content with it too.

[@Barry-Watson]

With four tops, you might consider putting two up by the stage, and using the other pair to fill in parts of the room that aren't getting very good coverage. Those fill loudspeakers may need a delay on them of approximately one millisecond per foot from their distance to stage.

[@soundgineering4771]

Agree and agree. The 60-degree narrow beam is a good idea. You are right. In the end, the crowd is usually happy. Thanks for the in-depth feedback.@@Barry-Watson

[@soundgineering4771]

@@Barry-Watson Yes, this is what we did. However, we didn't set up any delay. We used the mixers aux for two of the left and right filling speakers. So, the Main L/R > Subs > Top and Aux 1, 2 to two separate filling speakers is how we connected the speakers. Could there be any better way than that? Thanks.

[@Barry-Watson]

Glad it worked! Usually, I would want a copy of the same signals that's going to my stage tops for the surrounds. I would want the level of the surrounds to track what the main speakers are doing, so I can turn everything up and down with the main faders at once. So, on the board I could set up a routing to give me extra outputs that would track the main left right, or I could use a simple Y cable to drive both the front amplifiers and the rear amplifiers with the rear amplifiers having some in-amp dsp (or external processing - like dbx driverack?) with delay, EQ and low frequency cut for the rears, there are probably a number of nice ways you could do this. You could use extra (post-fader) busses in the mixer, and provide a separate band mix to those surrounds if you didn't want everything in them, but to me that sounds a little bit complicated to mix, having to pay attention to what's happening both from the mainstage and the surrounds and mixing them as separately during the show. Personally, I like to keep it easy if I can.

[@thomas9469]

Hello Mr Barry. I am a singer at the church worship team. Would u suggest SM 86 better than Beta 58a. Thanks.

[@Barry-Watson]

Yes, I think an SM86 would sound more detailed and clearer with a more extended high-end, however it would also likely to be a little teeny-bit more likely to feedback (if you're not using IEMs). Probably not a big issue if you don't have crazy loud wedge monitors on stage, and you are using good quality monitors without major peaks in the frequency response. I would probably purchase a single SM86 and give it a try to see if you like that microphone, if so, then buy a few if possible. An alternative condenser choice would be the Shure Beta 87, But I think the SM86 sounds as good, or nearly so, for a lower price. If you don't love the results, I probably would not choose a Shure Beta 58, personally to my ear they have a somewhat honky edgy character - but some people love em, and different mics are ideal for different voices always. I would reach for a Shure SM58 (a much better, smoother sounding mic IMHO), or maybe better yet a AKG D5, or step up to a Audix OM5. There are plenty of nice dynamic mics you could audition. If you have a local sound store where you can try some mics see if you can do a couple minutes of recording yourself on each of the different mic choices they have and then carefully listen to the playback on headphones and see which one makes your vocals sound best. I might use the Beta 58 in a situation where I was struggling with feedback on stage and I wanted a really tight pick-up pattern, but if that was the case it'd reach for the Audix OM7 which is far superior. If you can use all (or mostly all) the same microphones on everyone, and all the same stage monitors, that will make your issues with potential feedback on stage a lot more manageable, and generally make the show a bit easier to mix.

[@thomas9469]

@@Barry-Watson Thanks for the quick reply. I heard beta 87 a is good for female voice due to the highs. SM 86 for Male. I have beta 58 wireless and I know what u mean. Also looking to get some SM58. I think the Beta 58 has more power compare to SM 58. My local store won’t let record they have headphones but it’s hard to judge. What u think about Seinheiser E945. I test that compare to Beta 87a I can’t tell any difference. Thanks again.

[@Barry-Watson]

Both the Beta 87 and SM86 are condenser mics and I tend to put them in the roughly same category. Good for both male and female singers, balanced sounding, but with a crystal clear detailed high end (like many condensers). The Beta 58 has a little bit more output level than an SM58, I don't know that I'd say it has more power, just means a little teeny bit of adjustment at the mixer preamplifier to make them equal. I'm usually not a big fan of the Sennheisers they do work great for *some people but they tend to have a boosted high end that makes them a bit more twitchy for feedback and I don't feel they are as balanced sounding as some other choices. If your vocals are naturally muddy sounding, that might be the mic, but usually I try to avoid the overly hyped response mics. They tend to sound really impressive at first but it's not a sound for me that survives the test of time. If price is an issue I think the AKG D5 is a value leader. To my ears it's a little bit better overall and clearer than an SM58 while still sounding nice and balanced and has good feedback rejection, for about the same price as a SM58. I wouldn't say it's a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of personal taste, different people will have different opinions. I may be able to give better guidance if you let me know what mic you're using now, and what your hoping for with a new mic. Also what price range you're looking at.

[@thomas9469]

Much appreciated!!

[@thomas9469]

Mr. Barry. I received the new SM86 yesterday. Thanks for the advise. What will be the proximity effect on this compare to beta 58a. How far the mic need to be out from the mouth. Appreciated.

[@brianblock-ul6re]

Could you mic toms with sm 58's in a live situation?

[@Barry-Watson]

Absolutely, it would work well for that. Some people might think it looks a little funny using a "vocal" mic but I see no issue with it. The SM57 is a great choice for micing drums, and the SM58 is essentially the same microphone with a round ball pop filter. Technically, there are some minor differences in sound quality due to differences in the grill, but both mics use the same element and perform almost identically. Aaaand... If you have a sloppy drummer, the SM58 grille might endure a hard drumstick strike better than the plastic grille on the SM57. ;)

[@VideoArchiveGuy]

@@Barry-Watson Yep - I used SM58s for over a year as drum mics until I had the funds to pick up a pair of 57s.

[@DarrellHughes82]

If reference mics have the flattest responses, shouldn't we be using them to capture the voice to preserve integrity of the voice curve, free of mic tone coloration???

[@Barry-Watson]

Good question, obviously folks like Brüel & Kjær make some very impressive calibration microphones, priced accordingly. There are also a lot of inexpensive calibration microphones used by many people to check the frequency response of sound systems. Those inexpensive mics may have fairly flat frequency response, but that doesn't mean that they are great mics overall. As with all engineering, there are trade offs and in this case in the pursuit of very flat frequency response often other important attributes are compromised. The case of the less expensive mics, this might be things such as low internal noise, sometimes distortion and transient response, and calibration mics are almost always omnidirectional - so they would pick up a lot of extraneous background noise from every direction in many situations. In a live vocal situation, they would be a feedback disaster. Also, beware, that with the inexpensive calibration mics they are not perfect. I've seen variations of a couple db between different units. In practical terms, they work fine, and is usually better than whatever you're trying to measure. However I have gotten different eq responses (by a little bit), depending upon the particular mic I choose to pull out of the bin. When it comes to a vocal mic The consensus is that a perfectly flat mic really isn't the sound that's most pleasing to most people. Mic manufacturers put in a lot of effort to create a microphone with just the right gentle EQ curve to provide a pleasing result. The EQ curves of legendary popular mics are often used as a baseline to emulate by competitors. If you want a very flat microphone, that's a good mic all-around, and is a cardioid (directional) consider a Shure SM81 studio mic. The SM81 is an excellent general purpose small diaphragm condenser, that sounds great, and has nearly ruler flat response. I think you could even use it as a calibration mic and get pretty darn close. ;) I have used it sometimes for vocals and it does work decently with a pop filter. Thanks for the question!