Fake Britain. Shure Microphones

[timmo]

An article about Shure Microphones. It starts at 28.45 and about 5 minutes long if anyone is interested.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01jv9pk/fake-britain-series-3-episode-14

[Stu-khag]

Cheers for the link. I was talking this with a friend the other day who reckons there are now more fake sm58s in the world than real ones!
Its totally put me off buying secondhand or off amazon or ebay.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Stu-khag

[rubis]

Me too, I'd like an SM57 for recording guitars and I'm very wary about them

[KevB]

There have probably been threads about this before but it was rife on eBay a few years ago and people became very wary about buying Shure mics from there. Though I've never had them professionally checked out all the SM58's I've picked up S/H on eBay seem to be genuine, none show any of the tell tale deficiencies shown up in the programme. However i think i was lucky in a way that some of them were quite old (but well looked after) and probably predated when the fakes really started to kick in. I'd be cautious about buying online new from anywhere other than a reputable dealer now though.

[KevB]

It also brings up the question that if you had a good quality fake and it was electrically safe and did the job it was required to do would you throw it away on principle because it was a fake? We play basses that are copies of the 'real' original all the time don't we?

[skej21]

I don't get all the fuss about the SM58. We have Shure and AKG in the rehearsal space and I use an AKG D5 over the SM58 every time. The highs aren't as rolled off as the SM58 which makes it sound more airy and open and the D5 seems to have a better low frequency response and a lower frequency reach (which is nicer for bass cabs and guitar amping).

With a little bit of research on the comparisons, the D5 often comes out on top too. It's also approx. £20-30 cheaper than the SM58. It won't stop people from sticking to what they know though ;-)

[timmo]

I think there is a difference between a copy and a fake. Most copies don`t set out to decieve, but fakes do. It is really only a problem if you are buying what you think is original, but turns out to be a fake. If you buy a fake knowingly, then you will pay the price for the inferior product.

[flyfisher]

But is the fake really an inferior product? The SM58 is a decades old design so I doubt it would be particularly difficult to make a well-performing copy. Has anyone ever conducted detailed comparative testing?

[skej21]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1401447519' post='2463692']
But is the fake really an inferior product? The SM58 is a decades old design so I doubt it would be particularly difficult to make a well-performing copy. Has anyone ever conducted detailed comparative testing?
[/quote]

Did you watch the whole clip? I thought the tests they did were pretty comprehensive...

Edited May 30, 2014 by skej21

[Norris]

I have a fake SM58 and it doesn't sound too bad compared to a genuine one - slightly more top end if anything. It still sounds good enough to gig with, and it's certainly not worth forking out another pile of cash for a genuine one. If I was going to replace it I'd probably look at some of the Behringer equivalents, but I generally avoid singing too much anyway for the sake of the audience

[KevB]

[quote name='skej21' timestamp='1401447631' post='2463693']
Did you watch the whole clip? I thought the tests they did were pretty comprehensive...
[/quote]

I watched all of it and i was a bit curious about those 4 boxes he had to one side saying they were ones that only an 'experienced professional' would spot as a fake or words to that effect. May be reading too much into it but it suggested to me they probably passed all the other general tests that they then subsequently did on some of the other 'lesser fakes'. Or maybe they still gave hand held rumble and easily fed back? wasn't very clear.

[Beer of the Bass]

It would be interesting to see how some of the honestly marketed copies (Superlux, Behringer etc.) measure up against the real ones. I wonder if they're better than the fakes, or the same thing with a different label?

Edited May 30, 2014 by Beer of the Bass

[skej21]

[quote name='KevB' timestamp='1401449099' post='2463719']


I watched all of it and i was a bit curious about those 4 boxes he had to one side saying they were ones that only an 'experienced professional' would spot as a fake or words to that effect. May be reading too much into it but it suggested to me they probably passed all the other general tests that they then subsequently did on some of the other 'lesser fakes'. Or maybe they still gave hand held rumble and easily fed back? wasn't very clear.
[/quote]

I took it as 4 that were broken out the box, 1 which worked but was obviously poor build quality and 4 that looked perfect so would only be shown up once they were put under the tests that followed (feedback, movement noise, dropping lol etc).

Edited May 30, 2014 by skej21

[flyfisher]

[quote name='skej21' timestamp='1401447631' post='2463693']
Did you watch the whole clip? I thought the tests they did were pretty comprehensive...
[/quote]

Yes and I didn't think they were very scientific tests at all. I was thinking more about a proper measurement of the polar response pattern from each mic, for example, rather than simply singing into the side of the mic. Also, output level and frequency response would be very easy to test. As for the drop test, it would be hard to think of a more useless test in terms of equivalence and repeatability since both mics would have struck the ground at different places and angles.

Lazy journalism and propaganda really as well as a missed opportunity to really show the differences between the fake and real products . . . . Unless of course the differences are actually insignificant. But who would want to broadcast THAT story ?

[skej21]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1401449847' post='2463734']


Yes and I didn't think they were very scientific tests at all. I was thinking more about a proper measurement of the polar response pattern from each mic, for example, rather than simply singing into the side of the mic. Also, output level and frequency response would be very easy to test. As for the drop test, it would be hard to think of a more useless test in terms of equivalence and repeatability since both mics would have struck the ground at different places and angles.

Lazy journalism and propaganda really as well as a missed opportunity to really show the differences between the fake and real products . . . . Unless of course the differences are actually insignificant. But who would want to broadcast THAT story ?
[/quote]

If they were so close, surely the differences wouldn't have been so obvious? The fact that the fake had a lot of feedback (the real had none), the fake didn't work when dropped (the real did), the fake had a much less focused polar pattern (the real didn't). I'm not sure I need a drawing of the polar patterns to notice the differences after viewing the video.

I do agree that a visual of the frequency response and output might have been useful but the other tests were so clearly different I can't really see how detailed graphics would have given a clearer picture. It's also a daytime show. If it was in sound on sound or similar, I'd expect that kind of detail as it's aimed at an audience that would understand it enough for it to be worth the effort.

[peteb]

According to what some of my mates who work at a big PA company say, you need to be very careful with the genuine new SM57 / SM58s these days. They are no longer US made and the QC has gone right down with no consistency from mic to mic. They tend to use other brands now…

[KevB]

[quote name='skej21' timestamp='1401449639' post='2463730']
I took it as 4 that were broken out the box, 1 which worked but was obviously poor build quality and 4 that looked perfect so would only be shown up once they were put under the tests that followed (feedback, movement noise, dropping lol etc).
[/quote]

Yep, that would make sense too. Whatever these outcomes if there really are as many fakes knocking about as we are led to believe then it has to suggest that there are a lot of people using them in bands, bingo halls and recording studios who are presumably quite happy with what they have though. Unoless they are all lying idle in drawers and gig bags as 'emergency use only' backups? could be.

Edited May 30, 2014 by KevB

[flyfisher]

[quote name='skej21' timestamp='1401450290' post='2463741']


If they were so close, surely the differences wouldn't have been so obvious? The fact that the fake had a lot of feedback (the real had none), the fake didn't work when dropped (the real did), the fake had a much less focused polar pattern (the real didn't). I'm not sure I need a drawing of the polar patterns to notice the differences after viewing the video.

I do agree that a visual of the frequency response and output might have been useful but the other tests were so clearly different I can't really see how detailed graphics would have given a clearer picture. It's also a daytime show. If it was in sound on sound or similar, I'd expect that kind of detail as it's aimed at an audience that would understand it enough for it to be worth the effort.
[/quote]

The drop test was pathetic. It means nothing unless both mics hit the ground in the same place at the same angle. The fact that they had the leads attached meant this would have been impossible as they would have been flailing around on their way to the ground and would have hit in a random manner.

The polar pattern test was equally pathetic. If you sing into the side of a genuine SM58 in a quiet room then you'll here exactly what that video showed, the sound level will be lower than when singing directly but still audible. Such tests mean nothing without proper measurements across a suitable sample.

But you're right about it being a daytime show. It's light entertainment for those who like to have prejudices reinforced without having to ask probing questions or do any thinking.

[leschirons]

A French guitarist I played with here bought a fake (or copy) SM58 thinking it was just a good deal as it included a cable, mic clip, case and mic stand. We did warn him and to be honest, visually it was impossible to tell the difference. Soundwise, it was slightly more toppy than a genuine one but sounded really good. The only issue was reliability. It lasted 18 months before dying completely so, probably just a component quality control thing rather than totally inferior.

[Zenitram]

Is it significant that he was French?

[PaulWarning]

can't stand that Dominic Littlewood, his fake sincerity gets right up my nose, and Shure are hardly likely to admit that some fakes are as good as the real thing even if they are.

[KevB]

[quote name='leschirons' timestamp='1401453997' post='2463807']
The only issue was reliability. It lasted 18 months before dying completely so, probably just a component quality control thing rather than totally inferior.
[/quote]

This is a very good point, long term reliability is going to be a bugger to test. If it fails after a year or two and follows the 'buy cheap buy twice' philosophy then its always going to be a false economy. I still have the ones I bought 6-8 years ago S/H on eBay and have always assumed them to be the real deal but I have no way to be certain without an expert inspection. I've replaced the metal pop shield on at least one of them with a non-Shure generic one so I guess that will make them slightly less authentic.

[deepbass5]

It used to be the industry standard so thats why it is targeted, but thinking back when I bought the first one for my then girl friend now wife for all of 34 years It cost me £85
compare my wages now to then the same Mic should cost about £1000. It must have been love. But we still have it and our guitarist uses it regularly. New - it came with a bag, stand clip and cable but you could specify with or without cable. she has since had the Beta 58 wired and a Beta radio system. The proximity effect on the Beta's is good compared with the standard 58 and hard wired beats the radio for bass reproduction hands down. There are better Mics out there now but that goes for bass guitars as well
Buy from a dealer you trust.
You dont get comedians want to borrow them and then blow into them and bang people on the head like they did in the 70's oh! and Roger Daltrey

[leschirons]

[quote name='Zenitram' timestamp='1401454114' post='2463812']
Is it significant that he was French?
[/quote]

There were two of us Brits in the band at the time and we both told him that it was going to be a copy at that price, especially, as it was coming from China I don't think a Brit would have fallen for that one. So, yes.

[Zenitram]

Zose craezzee Fhrench!