Sennheiser e835 vs SM58: The Numbers and the Owners Disagree

Neither is a condenser, which is the other way to spend this money: an Audio-Technica AT2020 puts out 14.1 mV/Pa for $99 and needs phantom power and a quiet room to do it.

On paper the Sennheiser wins every comparable row: $99.95 against $109, 2.7 mV/Pa against 1.59, 40 Hz against 50 at the bottom and 16 kHz against 15 at the top. Cheaper, 4.6 dB hotter, wider at both ends.

The owners disagree. Across 50 ratings the e 835 averages 4.7 with two three-star and one two-star review in the set. Across 165 the SM58 averages 4.9 with nothing at all below four stars. Buy the Sennheiser if the specification is what you're buying. Buy the Shure if a decade of other people's experience is.

Side by side

4.6 dB, and where it lands in the row

2.7 mV/Pa puts the e 835 second from the top of the seventeen dynamics here whose figures reduce to one unit; only a Sennheiser e935 at 2.8 is louder. The SM58 at 1.59 sits seventh from the bottom, and the gap between them is 4.6 dB.

One detail about how the two figures are printed is worth naming, though. Sennheiser gives 2.7 mV/Pa directly, in millivolts, while Shure gives −56.0 dBV/Pa and the millivolts in brackets. Both are the same quantity and both are honest, but only one of them can be read without a calculator, and the shop reprints whichever the maker supplies.

What the Sennheiser does not publish

Two fields are missing from both sides of the Sennheiser's paperwork that the Shure has, namely the off-axis attenuation table and any maximum SPL. The output impedance isn't on the shop listing either, but Sennheiser does publish it on its own documentation host: 350 Ω nominal at 1 kHz, with a minimum terminating impedance of 1 kΩ. And that host isn't the same address as the catalogue pages, which return a navigation shell with no specifications on them.

So the comparison is asymmetric in one field rather than three. On the Shure side there's a shop listing, its structured markup and a manufacturer's guide with an impedance and a cartridge part number. But on the Sennheiser side there's a shop listing plus a specification page carrying the impedance, the temperature range and the same 2.7 mV/Pa the shop prints. There's no rejection table and no maximum SPL on either.

Eleven microphones out of the 82 collected here publish off-axis angles, and the SM58 is one of them. For a live vocal that table is the most useful thing on either sheet. It says what a monitor behind the singer costs.

The ratings, which point the other way

Both distributions are healthy, and there isn't a one-star review in either. The difference is in the shape below four stars, where three of the e 835's 50 ratings sit against two of the SM58's 165. Three out of 50 is 6% and two out of 165 is 1.2%, which is a real gap in proportion though a tiny one in absolute terms. Neither sample's large enough to call a failure rate, though both microphones are simple enough that most of what a rating captures is expectation rather than reliability.

So exposure is what's actually settled by the two counts. A microphone with 165 ratings has been bought and used by more people than one with 50, and on a product this old that's information about market position, not about the capsule.

Where the extra 10 Hz and 1 kHz go

The e 835 publishes 40 Hz to 16 kHz against 50 Hz to 15 kHz. Neither states a measurement level, so the two pairs can't be lined up against a third maker's sheet. But between these two they still describe a wider window. For a vocal, most of what sits below 50 Hz is stage rumble, but 16 kHz against 15 is a difference above the range where a voice puts any energy. The wider window matters if the microphone is used on something other than a voice, and both makers explicitly allow that. Both are cardioid dynamics with no pad and no filter, and both cope with any level a stage produces.

Bodies that differ by shape, not by mass

Within three grams the two weigh the same: 330 g against 327 g. The shapes differ more than the numbers suggest, because the e 835 is 18 mm longer and 3 mm narrower.

A longer, narrower body puts the grille further from the hand and slightly changes where a singer's fist sits. Both use a 5/8"-27 thread with a 3/8"-16 adapter in the box, so clips and stands are interchangeable, and the cheaper Shure handhelds use the same fitting.

Which one to buy

The e 835 if the numbers are the argument, since it's cheaper, 4.6 dB louder and wider at both ends. And the specification doesn't give a reason to prefer the alternative.

The Shure if the missing figures matter. It publishes what it rejects from the sides and behind, its impedance is on record, its owner sample is three times larger. And the proportion of unhappy owners in that sample is a fifth as large.

For a first microphone bought without a way to test either, the SM58's combination of published rejection figures and 165 ratings is the lower-risk purchase. For a second microphone, added to a rack where the first one is already a Shure, the Sennheiser's extra output is the reason to make it a different model rather than another of the same.

Sources

1. Sennheiser e 835 and Shure SM58-LC product listings at B&H Photo Video: prices, rating counts and the star distributions above.
2. The product markup on those listings: frequency ranges, sensitivity, dimensions, weights, threads, and the off-axis attenuation figures published for the SM58 only.
3. SM58 user guide at Shure: output impedance, the spherical steel mesh housing and the R59 cartridge part number.
4. Sennheiser's e 835-S specification page on its documentation host: transducer principle, frequency response, pattern, sensitivity, nominal and minimum terminating impedance, temperature range, dimensions and weight. Sennheiser's catalogue pages return a navigation shell with no specifications; the documentation host is the address that carries them.
5. Medians, positions and the count of microphones publishing off-axis figures come from listings of 200 audio products collected the same way. How those are converted and compared.

The figures from the shop were collected on 20 August 2026 and haven't been updated since.

What we did not do

Neither microphone has been in our hands. The asymmetry above is real: one maker publishes a specification table and the other does not, and this page does not fill the gap with estimates.