REVIEW BEHRINGER SL75 VS SHURE SM57 VS PYLE PDMIC78

If a microphone looks like a Shure SM57 and sounds sort of like it, then it’s as good as a Shure, right?

Apparently it is not very difficult to make a microphone which looks virtually identical to a Shure SM57. Years ago there would have been glaring visual dissimilarities; maybe one made from plastic or the grille would be obviously different. Today, one to one clone copies are everywhere. Type “Shure SM57” into an Amazon search and look at what shows up.

If Behringer ever gets serious about making microphones they will make waves and OWN the affordable end of the market. Fortunately for all the little guys Behringer microphones are just an “also-ran” when it comes to mics, where their largest laudable feature is the extremely low purchase price. Let’s dig into their tribute to one of the most iconic microphones in the world. Meet the SL75! (SM57 clone)

BEHRINGER SL75 MICROPHONE

The Behringer SL75 is black instead of the dark proprietary color Shure has used for years. The SM57— like most Shure professional microphones — is painted a dark (very dark) greenish-black which looks like a knod to military hardware. The SL75 from Behringer wears a smooth satin black finish. It comes in a nice plastic carrying case (like Shure mics did back in the 1970’s). The SL75 is exactly what it looks like, a beautifully manufactured microphone made out of cast metal parts, with an identical grille and appearance to the Shure SM57. It is  virtually identical in form and function to the iconic Shure model. The SL75 is cardioid and low impedance. The SL75 comes with a rubber stand mount which is not a clone of the Shure counterpart, possibly one of the few physical differences between the 57 and 75 (confused yet?).

Click to enlarge

THE PYLE PDMIC78

Click to enlarge - Pyle and Shure

I bought this mic several years ago off Amazon. I found it listed new for $11.00 and wondered what it was like (at 1/10th price of a Shure SM57). It arrived here and got shoved on to a shelf in my store room. This same mic is still available on Amazon but it is priced up there with the Behringer SL75 now (more about pricing later).

The Pyle PDMIC78 looks very similar to the Behringer SL75, it’s got a black paint job and in other respects looks like an SM57. Your first BIG cue that this is not a 57 is the weight of the mic, the PDMIC78 is a lot lighter than either the Shure SM57 or Behringer clone. The documents that came with the Pyle mic don’t say anything about the impedance or whether it’s balanced. A bad sign is the cable that comes with the mic, it has an XLR on the mic end and a 1/4” unbalanced connector on the mixer end of the cable. 

Click to enlarge

SOUND TESTING

My favorite way to compare dynamic microphones for sound is to move the cable from mic to mic while speaking into them. For fun I added one of my old 1970’s Shure PE545 for comparison. I also grabbed two different SM57 which differ in age by about 12 years.

Test Preamp

For the test preamp I used a NEVE 1073spx with the high-pass filter and EQ bypassed. I tried each mic with the impedance button in the 300Ω and 1200Ω positions. The gain remained set the same for testing the Behringer, Pyle and Shure models. I immediately wrote down my impressions after each test. 

Preamp input gain setting

TESTING THE SHURE MICS

The two SM57 sounded virtually identical to each other, the PE545 Shure sounded very similar to the SM57 but with slightly more high frequency zing and maybe a tiny-bit less bass. The impedance switch on the Neve made virtually no difference in the vocal sound with the Shure mics, they sounded good in either postion. I picked one of the Shure SM57 to move forward with in testing the other mics.

TESTING THE BEHRINGER MICROPHONE

Behringer SL75 frequency response

The SL75 has a rise in the midrange similar to the Shure, but with slightly less high frequency reproduction accompanied with a good solid low frequency sound. The SL75 and the SM57 are in the same family of overall tone. The SL75 frequency response was affected by the high/low impedance switch on the Neve preamp, there was noticeably less bass in the sound when the preamp was set to low impedance compared to high impedance. The Behringer SL75 had noticeably more low frequency hum than the Shure SM57. 

TESTING THE PYLE PDMIC78

Pyle PDMic 78 frequency response

The output from this microphone was nowhere in the same league as the Shure or the Behringer microphones. This mic sounds cheap and tinny. The upper mids seem very boosted, the low frequencies sounded thin and there is a LOT more hum than either of the other two microphones by Shure and Behringer. Switching the Neve preamp to low-Z made the Pyle mic sound like it was passing through an old-time “telephone” sound effect, no lows and no highs. I suspect this mic is a mid-impedance model with an unbalanced output based off listening tests, the frequency response had all the characteristics of an impedance mismatch while the hum reminded me of unbalanced models from my youth. Unfortunately the documentation did not give specs for the output characteristics so I’m guessing based on experience. The frequency response plot is the same one they use on several different models so all their mics sound exactly the same or they just copy the same data from model to model; none of it inspires confidence. 

HANDLING NOISE COMPARISON

Shure has a patented suspension system inside their mic which isolates the mic capsule from the body so handling noise is dramatically reduced. Comparing these three microphones for handling noise produced shocking differences. 

As you might guess given the rest of its performance, the Pyle PDMIC78 was the worst for handling noise and mechanical rumble. The slightest rub or vibration on the exterior of the mic caused a huge rumble to be reproduced in the audio output. This would be a terrible mic for use on drums without some kind of external shock mounting. 

The Behringer SL75 also had significant low frequency rumble from physically handling the mic while in use. If you put it in a shock mount and isolate it from the stage or floor this mic could be useable tone wise but that is a lot of external hardware to use and store. 

The Shure SM57 sounded like it had noise cancellation after hearing the other two mics. Where the Pyle and Behringer both rumbled like the inexpensive microphones they really are, the Shure sounded dramatically better (dare I say professional) at rejecting handling noise and stage rumble. 

• LIKES - Behringer SL75
• Bargain Price for Classic SM57-styled Appearance
• Uniform frequency-response with upper mid boost

• DISLIKES - Behringer SL75
• Handling Noise - A lot of it!
• Background Hum - louder than desired

• LIKES - Pyle PDMIC78
• None to speak of

• DISLIKES - Pyle PDMIC78
• Poor sound reproduction (too much treble emphasis)
• A LOT of Hum
• Handling Noise - A lot of it!
• Useless spec sheet

• LIKES - Shure SM57
• Ubiquitous Sonic Footprint
• Background Hum - minimal
• Handling Noise - Not Much

• DISLKIES - Shure SM57
• None to speak of

BUYING RECOMMENDATION

Shure has used their capsule suspension system for years to endow their microphones with the kind of physical isolation required to almost completely eliminate mechanical noise. My sources indicate around $109 each as the sale price for SM57 currently. The sound produced by modern Shure SM57 microphones is basically the same as it has always been since this model first hit the market back around August of 1965. The transformer balanced output, cardioid directional pickup, output frequency response and low handling noise have made it an unbeatable tool for recording and sound reinforcement. Shure has kept the price reasonable over the years and that philosophy has helped grow their market share in spite of numerous assaults by unrelenting competitors. The Shure SM57 is the microphone I’d choose if I needed one, especially for live gigs. The 57 is great for so many rock music situations — vocals, guitar amps, drums, percussion, and more — it is one of THE MOST reasonably priced professional mic’s on the market (compared to Sennheiser, Royer, Beyerdynamic, Neumann, etc).

The SL75 is a strange product for Behringer and I think it reflects poorly on the overall quality this company’s other products are able to achieve. They make a lot of products that I like but this is NOT one of them. I don’t know why they make this microphone because it’s not very good or useful. Granted, you could buy five SL75 microphones for the price of one SM57 but you’d have five crappy mic's compared to one good one. High handling noise, excessive background hum and slightly dull frequency response are what stood out the most from this mic. If you want a nicely manufactured clone of a Shure SM57 (with much weaker performance characteristics), this model won’t disappoint you at around $20 (take home price). If you have a PA with subwoofers and good bass reproduction you’re going to need some way to roll off the handling noise and stage rumble or else you’ll be wasting a lot of amplifier power on making non-musical rumble (aka handling noise).

There is not much good to say about the Pyle PDMIC78, it doesn’t sound very good, it has obscene amounts of rumble and handling noise plus loud background hum from possible internal wiring issues. Is this mic high impedance or low impedance? Just to cover themselves Pyle includes a confusing cable with low and high impedance connectors. The cable features an XLR female connector (traditionally low impedance balanced output) on the mic end and a 1/4” male unbalanced phone plug (typically for high impedance inputs) on the end you plug into your mixer or preamp. Nobody needs this microphone and since it is priced head to head with the SL75, I would choose the model by Behringer over the Pyle.

MICROPHONE WEIGHT

SHURE SM57 = 9.1 ounces

BEHRINGER SL75 - 8.4 ounces

PYLE PDMIC78 = 6.2 ounces

EPILOGUE

I don’t like writing bad reviews because It feels like such a time waste. Some users of the Behringer SL75 have created glowing product reviews on retailer websites and honestly, it makes me wonder what they’re doing with them. I would never use this mic without some kind of external suspension mount or having a mixer with switchable 80 or 100 Hz high-pass filters to reduce stage rumble. Unfortunately the high-pass option would roll off a lot of bass content along with the low frequency noise. Maybe it would work as a budget low cost podcast mic?

The Pyle “57 styled” mic is basically useless, I don’t know what to do with it. It does not sound good plus it has A LOT of handling noise. It weighs 33% less than a real 57 so it does not even make a good hammer. It would look good glued to the wall of a nostalgic restaurant. Pyle should really stop making this model. It’s awful. You may be asking “Mark, why did you buy this?”. I got it brand new for $11 delivered. Worst $11 I ever wasted. I will find someone worthy to give it too. I want to stop seeing this mic. 

The reviews** on Amazon for the Pyle mic are all over the place but I was surprised to see so many 5-star reviews for this exact mic kit. Was mine just bad? Maybe there are some good ones?  I know this, I’m never buying another Pyle mic no matter how cheap it is. 

The Shure SM57 is a ubiquitous professional tool. It has a pleasing response curve which complements music and voice capture and it has internal shock mechanisms to dramatically reduce handling and mechanical noise. It turns out to be easy to make a mic that looks like a Shure SM57 but competitors have not cracked the formula for the total package. Shure has done a good job keeping the price reasonable for one of the world’s most popular professional microphones. If you can’t afford a new Shure 57, maybe buy a used one, but skip the clones. 

Thanks for reading High on Technology, Good Music To You!

©November 2025 by Mark King, it is NOT ok to copy or quote without written permission from the author. 

**My favorite 5-star review for the Pyle microphone “ it sounds great, I use it for Karaoke”

ONE MORE THING...

Printed on the box the Pyle PDMic 78 comes in, it says in big letters "Pyle USA.com".  While the company may be in the United States (I'm not sure) this microphone definitely was manufactured in China.