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 19150 times)

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: 1339
  • 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 0.03 seconds with 25 queries.