ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Shure ULX, SLX, PGX ???  (Read 32314 times)

Joseph Dixon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 285
Re: Shure ULX, SLX, PGX ???
« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2010, 03:59:09 am »

Tim Padrick wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 03:54

I don't know if I've worked with ULK, but I've worked with a number of the SLX and PGX, and I have hated them all.  They fail to pick up the nuances of the voice as well as a wired mic with the same capsule, they are more mushy and indistinct when the singer is in his/her low & quiet range, and they are more bright and irritating when the singer is in his/her loud & high range.

I recently worked with an EW100/835, and although not as good as a wired mic, I think I'm safe in saying that it sounded better than the SLX/PGX.  Once I was able to monitor some AT4000 series via headphones and they sounded quite good (although I don't know how tight their pattern is, as it was a pretty quiet stage).

I'm not a big fan of the wired SM or Beta 58 - I'd prefer to use even an E835 or E935. I won't gripe if an artist wants to use his/her wired Beta 87, as they seem to sound pretty good (so long as the band is not too loud).


Yep, what he said...
Logged

Matt Miller

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
    • http://rockyouphotos.tumblr.com/
Re: Shure ULX, SLX, PGX ???
« Reply #11 on: March 18, 2010, 04:00:02 am »

Just go the ULX series or Sennheiser ewANYTHING.

I do not like the SLX units at all, I've had drop out on a common basis once your only a few feet from them, they do sound very strained and audibly harsh.
Plus the battery meter is only on the transmitter and doesn't give an accurate readout.
Full, Full, Full, then blinking and dead!

Even old UC models rock out longer than the SLX.


Logged

Henry Cohen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1315
Re: Shure ULX, SLX, PGX ???
« Reply #12 on: March 18, 2010, 11:40:01 am »

John Neil wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 01:09

Also consider the FCC's apparent inability to make up their mind about designated frequency space.

Please elaborate.
Logged
Henry Cohen
Production Radio Rentals
----------------------------------
"Every new radio emitter since Marconi’s 2nd transmitter has caused interference to other systems!" - Michael Marcus, Oct '07

TJ (Tom) Cornish

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 0
Re: Shure ULX, SLX, PGX ???
« Reply #13 on: March 18, 2010, 12:18:33 pm »

I'm very far from an RF expert, but I believe John is commenting on the dubious future of any conventional wireless band with the current FCC attitude towards whitespace devices and pushing for more mobile broadband.  

Maybe it's not a dubious future, but I admit I'm very light on wireless equipment at the moment because I'm not confident the 500-600Mhz bands won't go away in a couple years, too.
Logged

Henry Cohen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1315
Re: Shure ULX, SLX, PGX ???
« Reply #14 on: March 18, 2010, 12:41:48 pm »

The 512-698MHz spectrum will be with us for at least another 10-12 years. Congress, the FCC, broadcasters and the clearing of incumbents could never move fast enough on a major spectrum re-allocation to effect a change in only two to three years. It'll be over 14 years by the time the 700MHz vacate date is upon us on June 12th, and congress and the FCC are only moving slower and slower with these major spectrum changes.

In other words, buy new gear now, or next year. It'll have surpassed its ROI and maybe even broken down beyond repair by the time a vacate date for 512-698MHz is upon us.
Logged
Henry Cohen
Production Radio Rentals
----------------------------------
"Every new radio emitter since Marconi’s 2nd transmitter has caused interference to other systems!" - Michael Marcus, Oct '07

TJ (Tom) Cornish

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 0
Re: Shure ULX, SLX, PGX ???
« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2010, 03:41:43 pm »

Henry Cohen wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 11:41

The 512-698MHz spectrum will be with us for at least another 10-12 years.


I hope you're right.


Logged

Scott Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2722
Re: Shure ULX, SLX, PGX ???
« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2010, 06:24:13 pm »

Charles Wick wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 02:40

..is there any really big need to purchase a ULX or SLX over the PGX?
I would think your budget might determine this.  I have a PG series mic that works fine, as well as several different more expensive models.  There is always a better and more expensive model.
Logged
"Percussive Maintenance" - Bang on it until it works!
Scott Smith, South Florida - MIXING OLD SCHOOL WITH NEW

Gus Housen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 511
Re: Shure ULX, SLX, PGX ???
« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2010, 07:28:32 pm »

For a good Value UHF microphone that actually works the ATW-700 series is pretty hard to beat. I bought one because I needed a extra for Summer "dog" rentals and ended up buying several more. I think its the cheapest unit that uses  "tone lock squeltch"
I have used it against the PGX and I thought it sounded better ( the lav or the handheld)I have used 6 @ onetime with no problem
Logged
You rock...We roll!

Tony "T" Tissot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3902
    • http://www.4dbsound.com
Re: Shure ULX, SLX, PGX ???
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2010, 07:47:17 pm »

Tim Padrick wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 00:54

I don't know if I've worked with ULK, but I've worked with a number of the SLX and PGX, and I have hated them all.  They fail to pick up the nuances of the voice as well as a wired mic with the same capsule, they are more mushy and indistinct when the singer is in his/her low & quiet range, and they are more bright and irritating when the singer is in his/her loud & high range.

I recently worked with an EW100/835, and although not as good as a wired mic, I think I'm safe in saying that it sounded better than the SLX/PGX.  Once I was able to monitor some AT4000 series via headphones and they sounded quite good (although I don't know how tight their pattern is, as it was a pretty quiet stage).

I'm not a big fan of the wired SM or Beta 58 - I'd prefer to use even an E835 or E935. I won't gripe if an artist wants to use his/her wired Beta 87, as they seem to sound pretty good (so long as the band is not too loud).

I have SLXs. They've been reliable performers as far as longevity and construction. Good enough for speech. I just added a body pack (Lavs for weddings).

But I have to agree a bit on the character of what comes out of them (I use SM and Beta 58 heads). It's pretty subtle, but annoying enough where I wonder what's going on. It's like the mid to higher frequency stuff is "brittle?" I have not noticed any low-end mush.

But I don't use them on any real singers anymore, unless I am out of other options.

I wish my next stop was Lectrosonics!
Logged
MNGS
ProSoundWeb - Home of 50,000 audio professionals - and two or three curmudgeonly SOBs.

Rick Stansby

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2401
Re: Shure ULX, SLX, PGX ???
« Reply #19 on: March 19, 2010, 05:01:40 pm »

Charles Wick wrote on Tue, 16 March 2010 23:40

Ok, so here is my question. I am looking at the Shure wireless mic systems. I know that there are the PG, PGX, SLX, ULX, etc. Pertaining to the PGX, SLX, and ULX systems only, assuming that they all had the SM58 mic, and if I wanted only 6 systems max to use at one time, is there any really big need to purchase a ULX or SLX over the PGX? (This is for installed sound at a church, used 3 times a week.) Thanks.


The PGX doesn't sound very good.  I swapped out a ULX for a PGX (that the singer provided) and the difference was night and day.  

Also the PGX can only handle 9 transmitters maximum in Turlock, so there isn't much room for 6 channels.  

Depending on which band you buy, the ULX can handle 18 to 21 transmitters, so you are a lot more likely to find enough open channels.
Logged
Rick
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 19 queries.