ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Down

Author Topic: Sennheiser 2000/e965 vs. Shure UHF-R/KSM9  (Read 18801 times)

Dave Gunnell

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
Sennheiser 2000/e965 vs. Shure UHF-R/KSM9
« on: February 01, 2013, 12:40:34 am »

Hi All:

I’m considering an upgrade from my Shure UHF Beta 87A wireless, and some recent research has me down to two systems:
•   Sennheiser 2000 series with e965 capsules
•   Shure UHF-R with KSM9 capsules

Both systems are at the same price point, similar feature set, and I’m sure either would be a quality rig.  Curious to hear what people’s experience has been, what you think of the capsules tonally, and how they compare from an RF reliability standpoint.

Regarding rider friendliness, the UHF-R seems to be the more widely deployed, but the higher end Sennheiser (3000/5000 series) seems quite popular as well.  But everyone I talk to is recommending I try the 2000 series…

Thoughts would be appreciated.  Thanks again.

Dave
Logged

Adam Robinson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 83
Re: Sennheiser 2000/e965 vs. Shure UHF-R/KSM9
« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2013, 08:03:54 am »

Hi All:

I’m considering an upgrade from my Shure UHF Beta 87A wireless, and some recent research has me down to two systems:
•   Sennheiser 2000 series with e965 capsules
•   Shure UHF-R with KSM9 capsules

Both systems are at the same price point, similar feature set, and I’m sure either would be a quality rig.  Curious to hear what people’s experience has been, what you think of the capsules tonally, and how they compare from an RF reliability standpoint.

Regarding rider friendliness, the UHF-R seems to be the more widely deployed, but the higher end Sennheiser (3000/5000 series) seems quite popular as well.  But everyone I talk to is recommending I try the 2000 series…

Thoughts would be appreciated.  Thanks again.

Dave

I prefer the sound of the e965 to the KSM9.  I've always felt the top end of the KSM9 to be a bit fake.  RF-wise, both are great products, but the UHF-R is definitely our industry standard. 
Logged

Thomas Lamb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 531
Re: Sennheiser 2000/e965 vs. Shure UHF-R/KSM9
« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2013, 09:02:20 am »

I prefer the sound of the e965 to the KSM9.  I've always felt the top end of the KSM9 to be a bit fake.  RF-wise, both are great products, but the UHF-R is definitely our industry standard.

+1 the Shure systems will almost never be frowned upon and will fit most any rider you find. The 2000 series are exceptional units but have not quite made the list yet. If its for personal consumption go with the sennheiser (although I like the 935) if your trying to make others happy UHFR. We have both and I like tgem both differently I normally use 935s on loud stages. The 965 is very full sounding "warm" and personally I don't think the ksm9 sounds much different from a beta87 which is a good choice in many situations. However, I deal with a lot if loud stages so I will often use sm87 over their beta counterparts.
Logged
bigTlamb

"If you suck on a functional analog desk, you'll really suck on a complex digital desk...." Dick Rees

David Shriver

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 76
    • Rockport Music
Re: Sennheiser 2000/e965 vs. Shure UHF-R/KSM9
« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2013, 09:26:57 am »

We recently installed 4 channels of the 2000 series sennheiser with the neuman KMS105 caps and body packs with MKE-2 lavs.  The system has been absolutely bulletproof.  Great RF performance, fantastic features, easy to use, amazing quality.  I considered the the Shure system, and I demo'ed both.  We went with Sennheiser mostly for the capsule selections.  The Neumann caps are really good, and they meet lots of riders.  I think the e965 is a better mic (for most people at least) than the KSM9 though both are great.  But I love the flexibility of being able to use the e935 dynamic, e965 condenser, or the KMS105.

-d

Logged

Simon Ryder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 130
    • Audio Engineer LTD
Re: Sennheiser 2000/e965 vs. Shure UHF-R/KSM9
« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2013, 09:36:40 am »

Hi All:

I’m considering an upgrade from my Shure UHF Beta 87A wireless, and some recent research has me down to two systems:
•   Sennheiser 2000 series with e965 capsules
•   Shure UHF-R with KSM9 capsules

Both systems are at the same price point, similar feature set, and I’m sure either would be a quality rig.  Curious to hear what people’s experience has been, what you think of the capsules tonally, and how they compare from an RF reliability standpoint.

Regarding rider friendliness, the UHF-R seems to be the more widely deployed, but the higher end Sennheiser (3000/5000 series) seems quite popular as well.  But everyone I talk to is recommending I try the 2000 series…

Thoughts would be appreciated.  Thanks again.

Dave

Why worry about it?  Dave Rat makes a Sennheiser to Shure  wireless capsule adapter.

http://soundtools.com/sen2shure.html

Buy the UHF-R with KSM9 heads and then buy some 965 / 935 heads and the adaper rings if you want to.
Logged
Rental Stockist of:
D&B Audiotechnik
DAS Audio
Soundcraft
Midas
Shure
Sennheiser
DPA

Steve Payne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 406
    • Soundworks of Virginia, Inc.
Re: Sennheiser 2000/e965 vs. Shure UHF-R/KSM9
« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2013, 11:50:53 am »

More rider friendly often equates to what is more familiar.  In the pop/rock/country market Shure has ruled the world for a long time.  In my opinion their wireless stuff is spec-ed because folks have been relying on some variation of the 58 forever.  It fits like a comfortable shoe. This just spills over to wireless needs.    In my opinion, Sennheiser designs and builds at least an equal transducer product and a superior rf product.  If rider acceptance equals success, then buy Shure, Yamaha, Vertec and be done with it.  Sometimes life is about more than plain vanilla pudding.  When you can satisfy the needs of your customer and have a little fun along the way, life becomes more than climbing on the treadmill.  Enjoy.
Logged
Steve Payne
like us on Facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/SOUNDWORKSOFVIRGINIA

Justin Bartlett

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 177
Re: Sennheiser 2000/e965 vs. Shure UHF-R/KSM9
« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2013, 03:48:51 pm »

Why worry about it?  Dave Rat makes a Sennheiser to Shure  wireless capsule adapter.

http://soundtools.com/sen2shure.html

Buy the UHF-R with KSM9 heads and then buy some 965 / 935 heads and the adaper rings if you want to.

Very cool piece, but it looks like it only works with dynamic capsules...
Logged

Jens Palm Bacher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
    • Lydfabrikken
Re: Sennheiser 2000/e965 vs. Shure UHF-R/KSM9
« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2013, 07:35:08 pm »


Regarding rider friendliness, the UHF-R seems to be the more widely deployed, but the higher end Sennheiser (3000/5000 series) seems quite popular as well.  But everyone I talk to is recommending I try the 2000 series…

You probably won't get Sennheiser to admit it, but it is my experience that the HDX compander chip in the 2000 system sounds better than the 3000/5000 series HiDyn... RF wise the 2000 performs very well.
Logged

Chan Xiang Ju

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
    • XJ Audio and Visual Productions
Re: Sennheiser 2000/e965 vs. Shure UHF-R/KSM9
« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2013, 10:57:19 pm »

You probably won't get Sennheiser to admit it, but it is my experience that the HDX compander chip in the 2000 system sounds better than the 3000/5000 series HiDyn... RF wise the 2000 performs very well.

in my opinion, cleanliness of signal yes but in terms of dynamic range i feel that the 3000 series outperform the 2000s.
Logged

Jens Palm Bacher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
    • Lydfabrikken
Re: Sennheiser 2000/e965 vs. Shure UHF-R/KSM9
« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2013, 11:19:26 am »


Ambient Recording do a Shure/Sennheiser adaptor for those that can only sing in a Beta58: http://www.ambient.de/produkte/ambient-recording/handheld-adapter/hha-shs.html


They also do a converter that adapts Sennheiser and Neumann 300/5000 capsules to Shure mounts:
http://www.ambient.de/produkte/ambient-recording/handheld-adapter/hha-s.html

« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 11:23:51 am by Jens Palm Bacher »
Logged

Chris Johnson [UK]

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 446
Re: Sennheiser 2000/e965 vs. Shure UHF-R/KSM9
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2013, 06:05:36 pm »

Hi All:

I’m considering an upgrade from my Shure UHF Beta 87A wireless, and some recent research has me down to two systems:
•   Sennheiser 2000 series with e965 capsules
•   Shure UHF-R with KSM9 capsules

Both systems are at the same price point, similar feature set, and I’m sure either would be a quality rig.  Curious to hear what people’s experience has been, what you think of the capsules tonally, and how they compare from an RF reliability standpoint.

Regarding rider friendliness, the UHF-R seems to be the more widely deployed, but the higher end Sennheiser (3000/5000 series) seems quite popular as well.  But everyone I talk to is recommending I try the 2000 series…

Thoughts would be appreciated.  Thanks again.

Dave

I'd buy ULX-D
Logged
Riedel Communications

Lee Buckalew

  • Classic LAB
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1337
  • St. Louis, MO area
    • Pro Sound Advice, Inc.
Re: Sennheiser 2000/e965 vs. Shure UHF-R/KSM9
« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2013, 10:58:33 pm »

I'd buy ULX-D

For channel density it beats 2000 series but it does not have as low a noise floor.  Tested them with a symphony orchestra client.  They chose 2000 series due to the superior noise floor and the easy ability to use with a Neumann 105 capsule.

Either system, ULX-D or 2000 series blows away UHF-R.  No comparison.

Lee
Logged
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.

Chan Xiang Ju

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
    • XJ Audio and Visual Productions
Re: Sennheiser 2000/e965 vs. Shure UHF-R/KSM9
« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2013, 11:31:32 pm »

For channel density it beats 2000 series but it does not have as low a noise floor.  Tested them with a symphony orchestra client.  They chose 2000 series due to the superior noise floor and the easy ability to use with a Neumann 105 capsule.

Either system, ULX-D or 2000 series blows away UHF-R.  No comparison.

Lee

Be aware that digital transmission mics might have latency issue. no issue most of the time until the artist is using IEMs.
Logged

Dave Gunnell

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
Re: Sennheiser 2000/e965 vs. Shure UHF-R/KSM9
« Reply #13 on: February 05, 2013, 08:50:40 pm »

Thank you all for the very helpful replies.

Next question: Which external antenna is more widely used with the Sennheiser receivers?  They make an omni and a directional--both passive devices (unless you need to drive a long run, then you add their RF amplifier).  Either can fit on a standard mic stand.  Most of my gigs are on moderate size stages indoors, but I do work outside on occasion, and every now and then I have to cover fairly good-sized rooms (100+ feet deep) with handhelds working audience commentary duty.  My sales rep is pushing me towards the omni, but many/most wireless rigs I've seen are using directional paddle antennas.

I honestly don't thinks it's going to make a huge difference either way, since the directional antennas only have 3dB of gain.  I'm just curious to hear what others are using and why.

Thanks.
Logged

Scott Wagner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1020
  • Richmond, VA
Re: Sennheiser 2000/e965 vs. Shure UHF-R/KSM9
« Reply #14 on: February 06, 2013, 12:59:37 pm »

I honestly don't thinks it's going to make a huge difference either way, since the directional antennas only have 3dB of gain.
3dB is twice - not exactly insignificant.
Logged
Scott Wagner
Big Nickel Audio

Jens Palm Bacher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
    • Lydfabrikken
Re: Sennheiser 2000/e965 vs. Shure UHF-R/KSM9
« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2013, 04:41:36 pm »

Thank you all for the very helpful replies.

Next question: Which external antenna is more widely used with the Sennheiser receivers?  They make an omni and a directional--both passive devices (unless you need to drive a long run, then you add their RF amplifier).  Either can fit on a standard mic stand.  Most of my gigs are on moderate size stages indoors, but I do work outside on occasion, and every now and then I have to cover fairly good-sized rooms (100+ feet deep) with handhelds working audience commentary duty.  My sales rep is pushing me towards the omni, but many/most wireless rigs I've seen are using directional paddle antennas.

I honestly don't thinks it's going to make a huge difference either way, since the directional antennas only have 3dB of gain.  I'm just curious to hear what others are using and why.

Thanks.
The 1031 Omni will do you just fine, especially if you remember to mount them above head height. The 2003 directional will give some gain, but the rear rejection is even more important in some applications, it means I can place my receive antennas closer to highpower IEM transmitter antennas without saturating the receiver frontend.

If you have to cover very long ranges rent a couple of CP-5000 or similar.
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: Sennheiser 2000/e965 vs. Shure UHF-R/KSM9
« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2013, 04:41:36 pm »


Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.041 seconds with 24 queries.