Talk:Shure Beta 58A

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 April 2011. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.

Professional sound production Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge

I think this should be merged into Shure SM58 (and redirected). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now it should not be merged, but info that was removed from the other article should be added here. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please offer your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shure Beta 58A. See you there! Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Podcasting??

Was this mike developed for poscasting (as the article says) when podcasting didn't exist until 20 years later? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This mic was released in 2006, according to Sound On Sound, so the Podcasting claim makes sense. Greenshinobi (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Beta 58 mic was released in 1989. The updated 'A' model (this article's topic) won a TEC Award in 1996. The SOS article is also from 1996. The mic was absolutely not made for podcasting. Podcasting developed from about 2000 to 2004. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry. I was simply repeating the podcasting claim made by Shure on their website. http://www.shure.com/americas/products/microphones/beta/beta-58a-vocal-microphone . I'm wrong about the SOS article being 2006. It was 1996. I never made the claim it was made for podcasting, only that it was a plausible use.Greenshinobi (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. Shure's marketing department must have got hold of the page and put podcasting on it. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of 'Users'

I don't think this list is of any value. Most live artists will use this mic at some point of their career. 91.96.99.250 (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all will. I recently picked up an earful of grief from a band who expected to be supplied SM58s on stage and were unimpressed to be given Beta 58s instead. Comments like "cheap, toy microphones" were used. I pointed out that if they were good enough for Pete Townsend (which I only knew from this article), they could STFU...

One value of this article is in clarifying why they're different from the venerable SM58, and why they aren't just a cheap substitute for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"clarifying why they're different from the venerable SM58"

with a list of endorsers mimicking marketing ploys does not add value to the article, and is as valueless as the opinions of your aggrieved band awaiting sm58's 2001:A61:3ACF:C901:10B3:6C2E:F71E:4D5F (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White balance

The "users" list is very, very white. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:47F:4952:BE6C:8BCC:3B0 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and without value anyway as simply a reflection of Shure's marketing.. 2001:A61:3ACF:C901:10B3:6C2E:F71E:4D5F (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacture location

I'm surprised there's no mention of manufacture location history as it seems a major value determinate for the product! Apparently older USA manufacture is more valued, and it could be useful to the article to mention when manufacture moved and where, and if it was model-suffix linked. 2001:A61:3ACF:C901:10B3:6C2E:F71E:4D5F (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]