ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

If you had to chose betweem these two IEM which would you choose?

audio technica m3m
- 3 (75%)
mipro 808
- 1 (25%)

Total Members Voted: 4

Voting closed: April 18, 2011, 04:24:03 pm


Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: audio technica m3m against mipro 808 IEM  (Read 2347 times)

patrick major

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
audio technica m3m against mipro 808 IEM
« on: April 16, 2011, 04:24:03 pm »

if you had to choose between these two what would you choose?
Logged

Daniel Cash

  • SR Forums
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
  • Portland, OR
Re: audio technica m3m against mipro 808 IEM
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2011, 07:42:28 am »

I have no experience with the mipro 808, but I work with an artist who has the AT m3m, and he has had an overall negative experience with them.  Lots of dropouts and other problems. We both feel that the problems he had with the system was more than just wireless issues, but hardware issues with the pack.

He just bought a Shure psm900 system to replace the AT system.

Why are you limiting yourself to these 2 options?
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 09:37:51 am by Daniel Cash »
Logged

Stuart Pendleton

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 187
  • Colonial Yorktown, VA
Re: audio technica m3m against mipro 808 IEM
« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2011, 01:28:02 pm »

No experience with the Mipro.  I have used the AT M3s for about 2 years now.  Did have some issues when I first got them, but after getting a Sennheiser AC2 and paddle antenna for it, things have been wonderful.  Used with a dozen wireless system running, at distances of 150 ft or less generally, but have been rock solid since then. I reviewed the M3s on the old LAB so you might check there.
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: audio technica m3m against mipro 808 IEM
« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2011, 01:28:02 pm »


Pages: [1]   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.049 seconds with 28 queries.