@ 2:17 The perforations are air vents to let sound in from the "back end" of the mic. The phase difference between those waves and the ones from the front is what makes the mic cardioid. If you completely cover the holes you change it to (near) omni. Making it less sensible to plosives, but more prone to feedback. A classic is grabbing the mic just under the "head" and leaning over the wedge monitor. FEEEEEEDBACKKKK Interesting experiment.

I had a few rock and progressive bands and we needed the dreaded sm 58 because of the presence they created to cut through the ensemble. The main vocalist learned a special type of hesitant pronunciation and mic distance control to get around the problem, without realizing it at first. Trying to deal with the actual cause is admirable.

These tests of you are so very, very helping! Thanks Dave!!!

A very interesting video. I enjoyed watching every second. You really put a lot of work into your research. God bless you for being a passionate, studious, and diligent individual.

I think the stacked design improves the sound of the mic overall. Nice!

Totally makes sense there Dave. When we consider a "pop filter" has the opportunity to disperse air plosions between the mic and filter. But it's all about the dispersement of energy when it gets to go through the filter, then post filter, it's much easier for the air gap to naturally disperse energy but not sacrifice frequency. "Cool, Cool!!"

Cool stuff! I just use multi-band compression to deal with it myself but cool to see this exercise in dealing with the source.

Very nice video Dave, i will try the nylon method, it seems to work very well. Thank you

Great fun video! The old studio trick was to have a pencil in front to deflect. I've a modded Oktava ML19 cardioid ribbon that was designed initially for speech and it used to have a curved concave strip of aluminium right in front of the ribbon which I assume was to deflect plosives which are bad news for the ribbon!

When you took the grill off B and revealed the "round hawk" I thought of the old Don King parodies on SNL. Interesting video, thanks for all the hard work to do such thorough testing.

Great one Dave .Was just up in Owen sound at a friend's house trying to get my buddies audio set up ..We got it n big trouble because his son had set up his effects console for a specific sound .Let's just say don't push the red button !

Again an absolute stunning video from you. I celebrate it. Thx a lot. To me, bcs of working on different shows w different artists here in Germany and Europe, where people tent to use a lot of different types of mics like sennheiser, akg, Beyerdynamic, Neumann beside the SM58, I’m using a dynamic eq, set to be active only at a certain level and changing it according to the pop frequency of the used mic. It works inaudible but effective. But it’s a wonderful mod for some artists from the US I’m touring with, who definitely swear on their SM58. Thx a lot. Greetz, @xel

I had this understanding that those mesh screens basically work to turn the turbulent flow of plosives into more laminar flow. And it's been rumored that even NASA at some point made laminar flow by just stacking packs of drinking straws after the fan to create laminar flow. So the mesh screen is "simplified" version of that principle of having multitude of holes in line :)

Dude LOVE your videos!!

Any love for the EV ND76. Great mics. Dont see them much.

The disks are kind of like the design of the windscreen on the KMS105. This testing is something I like because I have always said let the mic do the work and this is a way to do that. If you have the response you need out of the gate, you get a better mix faster. We spend hours and hours tuning speaker systems, why not spend more time working with the mics in this way.

Great Dave, Miself just have one of these 'foam ones' to put on mics (you can buy in diff colors🎉) and cut a tiny very small bit of gaff tape and put that over it from side to side. Just like the "pencil trick" over the grill of a large diagram or (even over the popscreen) Some singers just feel better with a 'handheld' All for the best Take ❤

As Lewitt found out when comparing their own pop filter that is magnetically held in place on their microphone mounts to other pop filters _(and the fact that when the Lewitt LCT 1040 came out, its filter was farther away than on all their previous microphones),_ the distance the pop filter has to the microphone is essential. It's easy to test if you got your own pop filter. Start making pop sounds with the filter touching the microphone grill, then move it farther and farther away to find the distance needed to make them effective. I use the Hakan P110 pop filter which is excellent. It's thick, but still needs a distance to the microphone to work properly. The air needs space to move away form the microphone (to dissipate, like you said), so placing it straight on top of the microphone is going to be difficult. I understand you didn't want to alter the exterior of the microphones since no tests with that was done. I am curious to how the effect of parts of the Hakan P110 filter cut up and placed inside of the microphone grille of the SM58 would work vs. your mod.

Interesting! Thanks for sharing.

Love it!

Dave, thanks for making this. Would have been cool to see the pink noise response for each mic after the modification

I just bought the official windshield for my SM58 and forgot about it :D I mean, it's not that often I expect needing that, but it's in my bag for that moment I DO need it. Same for the official SM57 wind shields...

In the film world, we all know that disrupting the wind with a layer of (faux) fur then giving it room to diffuse (air space) is key. The Rycote BBG comes to mind for something like a 58 (not sure if they make one for that mic)

Power to the people

Great Video. 😃👍♥️

Loved the P rap and the patented P-pop creator™. That was funny! 😎😎 Whenever I see a 58 used in a million live performances, I'm baffled at they can possibly sound that good. To me the 58 is really kind of dull with a ton of warmth/mud. I wonder if just removing a ton of low end to just make it sound better also had the impact of reducing the pops significantly, whereas say a beta 58 is brighter and you wouldn't eq it the same and maybe wind up with more pops. Maybe interesting, but I thought your putting the audix filter in there made it sound a little more like what I think an OM7 sounds like. Just throwing food for thought at you even though I'm sure you already considered all of that. Loved the video, super interesting, well thought out, and funny! BTW, you had a little segment talking about doing sound for Yngwie in one of the zoom calls which was just hilarious. I can't find it now, but I think that would be worth posting public, and I don't think the artists would be offended either. It was really funny how you told that story. It was regarding the 6 Marshalls on 10 and the 2 or 3 svt's on 10 and the keyboardist expecting his floor monitors to keep up and how you worked around that and then "poof"! Cheers, and hope all is going well for you!

When I see the purple desk in the field or on you're background I know im in safe hands. I've enjoyed the videos so much as well as the folk commenting. This set of comments with people dissing the 58 and your opinion did make me laugh out loud. You obviously did FOH for one of the biggest bands ever. Im no RHCP fan as such but I've always mixed what's on the stage and paying me. You should try getting Pooch or Big Mick on for a chat sometime to discuss the 58. Metallica switched vocal mic's but put the 58 capsule in the stage mic. I can't remember the model number they pretend to use on stage, let's call it the elvis mic. It's a 58 inside the shell. Appreciate the level of skill your system techs have guys. Cheer Dave Rat. 🐀

Fascinating. Off the top of my head,I wonder about a layer of felt between the foam liner and the grille.

Pooping puppies A takeaway is “get an OM-7”. Also, there are eq plugins that have use multiband compression. Presonus base eq now has one that you can set the range +\- (in this case reduction) and response trigger amount (in db) as well as the Q amount. I’m with you on stopping the air at the mic diaphragm 👍🏼 - but there are now EQs that mitigate very well.

Very interesting! I've always not liked the plosive amount from 58s, I prefer audix om series as they seem to have less plosive and a more airy high end in my experience. nice to see there's a noticeable difference in the mod!

Would also be interesting to measure the pink noise response at 2 distances to see whether the mods alter proximity effect

Nice.

What a coincidence, I was just thinking on the weekend how annoying the SM58 pop is (after using them for the last 30 years!).

I will have to try what you've done with a rap mic that I've been designing

Polenta is quite evidently the issue

Change the title to "SM58 puppies pooping in piles of polenta" 😂

Fun interesting content

7:40 I don't know why but that graph reminds me of duck hunt on an NES you hit the bird and it would freeze and then drop.

Thank you Dave!! Could you pls tell how did u capture the sound of that gun without pressing space bar? thanks

Dave, I would really like to hear your thoughts on the old feedback reduction technique where two microphones are taped together, you sing into the top one and the bottom one is out of phase. Is this a way to reduce or eliminate feedback without having to ring out problem frequencies? Also, what feedback reduction methods are used at modern big shows? I would think at that level, there are too many problem frequencies to be able to ring them out without harming sound quality. Thank you.

I've often thought about doing something like this with an M80... Love the sound of that mic, but the plosives can be pretty bad

One of the best way to eliminate plosions is to teach your vocalists good mic technique.

cool

That first modified mic seems to have about 10db less p pop. Maybe if we get something that works, Shure will take it and run. Perhaps someday we will see a SM58ool (no p in it) or something...

What we could do in terms of a solution is to design a piece of CNC cut foam rubber which fits over the SM58 screen, and the foam rubber holding a pop shield. Yes. Not hard to make, methinks. Aluminum foam might be good as well. Wire would also probably be ok. Could likewise just redesign the windscreen and grille, and sell a 3rd party upgrade which replaces the silver grille golf ball. Antimicrobial - solid silver or chromium finish, and the ability to attenuate the cardiod back entrance by adjusting a dial would be neat. I will furnish the thread some drawings, gimme a minute and a half hour and some head scratches.

I’m super surprised that with 3D Printers being so prevalent these days, that there hasn’t been some 11 year old somewhere, who has solved this problem for us, yet…

Great video, Dave. I do take one issue though. Where is the frequency response and plosive tests for an SM58 with an external, foam pop filter? It seems essential to understand how it, as well as your modifications, compare to one another. It is, after all, the reference for existing plosive mitigation. For curiosity sake, you might also include a flat, gooseneck mounted studio pop filter as well.

Whats that software you're using for the freq response? Smart? Got a link?

Ever just taped a pencil to the outside of the mic, centred on the diaphragm? Love that trick for the studio but naturally doesn’t lend itsself to live, but perhaps there’s a 3d printable cap for the top of the mic grill someone can invent?

Here all us simpletons are using SM58's, Dave's out there using SM59's

I would argue the principal part of the plosive problem is simply incompetence on the part of the person using the microphone. I propose using absolutely NO high pass filter in the performer’s path. Let them hear the problem their misuse provokes and perhaps, just possibly, they might pick up a precious new practice.

DAAAAAAAVE how come you didn’t include a stock 58 with a Shure foam pop filter for comparison?

I've been using an sm57 with a windscreen. Seems to work...

I have a theory that plosives do not follow the inverse square law in the same way that regular sound waves do. I've noticed when doing corporate sound, when someone is speaking into a microphone that is too far away from their mouth, that the plosives are much more aggressive. I think it's because you're using so much preamp gain to make up for the distance to the source, that you're amplifying the plosives with the rest of the noise floor. Conversely, I notice if you speak into a microphone with your mouth right against the grille, the plosives aren't as noticeable. Even though the plosives are much more likely to hit the diaphragm, they're not being amplified as much with the rest of the noise floor since you don't need to use nearly as much preamp gain. Would you be able to test that? Plosives at different distances vs pink noise at different distances? Do they stay at the same relative level or not?

What are this little wedges????

I could be totally wrong on this, but it seems to me the best route to go is an external filter. Keep the stock windscreens, but add a "bozo nose" foam over top. Those to me do a much better job at diffusing the extra burst of air pressure on the plosives. It's a cheap and easy solution, short of adding in a nylon stocking and rubber band to hold in place. The more expensive added step would be to also to swap out the audio transformer inside the bottom half with one made by Tab Funkenwerk, the AMI T58. It's a $90 USD modification and gets the frequency curve of your SM57/58 close to that of the Shure Unidyne 565SD or 545SD.

Preforate that perforation..

Performing a rudimentary investigation of pop-shielding the SM58 and similar mics, I turned up this product called the "Popper Blocker", and this KZfaqr covering the commercial product: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oNKFfq6lzpzFnWQ.htmlsi=WOBI-BgfqonfEQRn So you can kinda just shove some extra material inside the dome. I propose developing a pop-shield specific to the SM58, possibly an alternative windscreen, and even a new system for mounting an SM58 element, particularly those made for wireless systems could be easily modified to form a new model housing which has been hardcore-modified to get that SM58 sound but with a much stricter and more rugged enclosure, with some extra acoustic features.

"Round Hawk" haa

Poor polenta :(

The plosive pop gun. What a clever man. Seriously. I want one. With an A weighted response. I want one that does impulse response sampling and measures sound levels. With a cable tester. And a laser pen, one that measures distances and tells you the delay time would be nice. rta/peak display. And a smartphone holder. And a butane jet lighter for soldering and heat shrink. And a torch. And a walkie talkie. And a fitting for a holster for a real firearm - gigs in africa are serious. Fit it to the side of the mixing console, innit. In lime green. All mounted in a plastic AK47 with a rubber rat deadcat like a silencer. Yes. Can you make a run of them? I think we need them. Especially Ukraine. And a bayonet.

"this thing is a work of art" 🤟 are you familiar with the work of john otway? here in a slightly more sedate couple of numbers, but he later earned a deal with shure after his sm58 featured prominently in a number that involved him head-butting it repeatedly. at gigs, the mic would end up almost unrecognisable but mostly still functional. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kJyfhJegt67Dnpc.html

Heh heh heh.. He used muff.

Am I the only one who actually made an uwu noise uncontrollably when I looked at the graph in smaart at the graph of the fly gun? I love how rounded it looks! Please tell me that is the actual curve, and not just an artifact of the speed of the measurment.

Just buy Audix microphones;)

I solved this years ago!!!! I just don’t use those antiques! Problem solved!

It’s called engineering. I’m pretty sure that Shure spent more hours than you. 😂

You know the best plosion reduction technique for a 58? Throw it in the trash and buy an OM5 or V7. I seriously can’t wait until the 58 finally loses traction. I will praise the day.

I'm sorry you are wrong. About the frequency response on, a, SM-58. Sorry, no. The frequency response does not stay, the same. You are wrong there. And here's why. That you didn't take into account. Every unidirectional microphone has proximity effect. That get fairly pronounced on a SM-58. And if you put on their little optional, Foam Pop Filter. Well? It's going to keep your lips. Another 1/4 inch further away. From the grill and the diaphragm. Of that SM-58. And in so doing. It still reduces the Proximity Effect. Though not by much. But a little goes a long way. So you're not correct there and. And. The difference becomes even more pronounced. If you put the large oversized, rather long, Foam Pop Filter on a SM-58.. When you then might notice. It'll compare almost unmistakably. From the SM-7's. That cost $300 more. But it's the same capsule. The real difference in the sound is your distance of your lips to the diaphragm. In that case. You really can't get closer than 2 inches from the diaphragm. That makes it even more huge difference. In both low-frequency, proximity effect and overall output level. And so I'm really surprised to hear you without this, additional information I mean this is not rocket science you know. And that does make a sizable difference in the sound. Because you see. My specialty is in doing, Live Broadcasts, Live Recordings. And I will usually insist. We put at least the extra standard small optional, foam pop filter. On the SM-58's. It makes a huge difference, huge. So I don't know where you're getting your information from? And quite frankly I like the larger oversized foam pop filters. But won't usually find that on a vocal PA microphone position. So then you use the smaller foam pop filter. It makes a huge difference. Believe it. I mean I would live to any of you. I'm a history making multiple major music award nominee. RemyRAD