ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Shure wireless distortion  (Read 6419 times)

Nathan Vanderslice

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 271
Re: Shure wireless distortion
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2015, 10:17:41 am »

I love the C535 but it's not a go-to choice for screamers or shouters.  I had one gospel tenor easily overload a 535 with the pad engaged...

Thanks. Would there be any difference between the wireless sm58 and the wired one in terms of distortion?
Logged

Mac Kerr

  • Old enough to know better
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6875
  • Audio Plumber
Re: Shure wireless distortion
« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2015, 11:21:59 am »

Thanks. Would there be any difference between the wireless sm58 and the wired one in terms of distortion?

Yes. The wired one doesn't have a transmitter and receiver between the mic and the mic input.

Mac
Logged

Lee Buckalew

  • Classic LAB
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1340
  • St. Louis, MO area
    • Pro Sound Advice, Inc.
Re: Shure wireless distortion
« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2015, 11:45:12 am »

Thanks. Would there be any difference between the wireless sm58 and the wired one in terms of distortion?

Nathan,
You are not seeing distortion caused my the mic capsule of a dynamic mic clipping unless it is from plosives or "P-Pops".  The SM58 at 1kHz can handle around 160dB/SPL before diaphragm excursion causes a problem.  The level required to create this movement would vary with frequency but should be far higher than a vocalist can produce.

You are seeing clipping of the microphone electronics feeding into the RF section of the transmitter. 
This would not be present for a hard wired mic (unless you turn up your mic pre too far).

Lee
Logged
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.

Kevin Maxwell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1344
Re: Shure wireless distortion
« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2015, 11:46:47 am »

Thanks. Would there be any difference between the wireless sm58 and the wired one in terms of distortion?

I had a gospel singer once distort a hardwired SM58, not the preamp on the board but the diaphragm of the mic itself. I thought that there was some other problem but then I was told that that is how she sounded. Actually she may have really been distorting her vocal cords.   :o
Logged

Luke Geis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2092
    • Owner of Endever Music Production's
Re: Shure wireless distortion
« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2015, 06:18:16 pm »

i think that with many of the lower end RF stuff the biggest problems come from lack of bandwidth. There is only so much information that can get from point A to point B. Thus compression and companding are employed. The lower end mics have less bandwidth therefore higher amounts of compression and companding are employed. The issue could be one of two things when you actually hear distorted sound.

1. The circuit in the mic and or the receiver are actually clipping from a bad gain structure setup. This is probably most common and is the fault of the user for not addressing it.

2. The mic is getting a really hot signal that it must compress highly in order to squeeze the info within the allowed bandwidth. The resultant compression and subsequent companding are heard as crunching and distortion. The peaks of the audio that are highly compressed are not always companded ( Basically expanded ) as well as it went in and the wave form can show signs of distortion. 

Another nasty side effect that some systems do is eliminate the audio spectrum that is deemed worthless. The mic and or receiver will neglect info above and below a certain sonic threshold. Basically lows and highs are cut out of the transmission. This is another reason that RF doesn't always sound like their wired counterparts. The advent of digital RF that is now becoming standard is great. The info is not compressed or companded and is sent with full audio spectrum bandwidth. The only trade off of is a minute amount of latency. This new digital technology brings the RF mics closer if not exactly like their wired counterparts.

If your getting distortion and you have the pad engaged there is only 2 ways to eliminate it. Either a higher quality ( or digital ) RF system, or going back to a wired mic.
Logged
I don't understand how you can't hear yourself

Nathan Vanderslice

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 271
Re: Shure wireless distortion
« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2015, 11:59:50 pm »

Thank you to all for some great advice and for explaining it all so well. Now to another question. A couple of weeks ago, I was experimenting with different mics for a speaker cab, and with the AKG C3000, I was a bit taken aback as it sounded both a little distorted, and had kind of a bassy ?sp? muffle. Amp was down to almost the lowest setting, and the mic was ~ 2-3" away from the cab. At the same time, we had tried the same mic for vocal and found it actually quite nice. It had a nice presence in the middle to middle high range for a really clear and easy to understand speech. Any thoughts?
Logged

Tim McCulloch

  • SR Forums
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21564
  • Wichita, Kansas USA
Re: Shure wireless distortion
« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2015, 02:45:02 am »

Thank you to all for some great advice and for explaining it all so well. Now to another question. A couple of weeks ago, I was experimenting with different mics for a speaker cab, and with the AKG C3000, I was a bit taken aback as it sounded both a little distorted, and had kind of a bassy ?sp? muffle. Amp was down to almost the lowest setting, and the mic was ~ 2-3" away from the cab. At the same time, we had tried the same mic for vocal and found it actually quite nice. It had a nice presence in the middle to middle high range for a really clear and easy to understand speech. Any thoughts?

The address-side of the mic was facing away from the guitar speaker.  It was backwards.
Logged
"Practicing an art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow, for heaven's sake. Sing in the shower. Dance to the radio. Tell stories. Write a poem to a friend, even a lousy poem. Do it as well as you possible can. You will get an enormous reward. You will have created something."  - Kurt Vonnegut

Lee Buckalew

  • Classic LAB
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1340
  • St. Louis, MO area
    • Pro Sound Advice, Inc.
Re: Shure wireless distortion
« Reply #17 on: April 08, 2015, 06:54:58 am »

i think that with many of the lower end RF stuff the biggest problems come from lack of bandwidth. There is only so much information that can get from point A to point B. Thus compression and companding are employed. The lower end mics have less bandwidth therefore higher amounts of compression and companding are employed. The issue could be one of two things when you actually hear distorted sound.

1. The circuit in the mic and or the receiver are actually clipping from a bad gain structure setup. This is probably most common and is the fault of the user for not addressing it.

2. The mic is getting a really hot signal that it must compress highly in order to squeeze the info within the allowed bandwidth. The resultant compression and subsequent companding are heard as crunching and distortion. The peaks of the audio that are highly compressed are not always companded ( Basically expanded ) as well as it went in and the wave form can show signs of distortion. 

Another nasty side effect that some systems do is eliminate the audio spectrum that is deemed worthless. The mic and or receiver will neglect info above and below a certain sonic threshold. Basically lows and highs are cut out of the transmission. This is another reason that RF doesn't always sound like their wired counterparts. The advent of digital RF that is now becoming standard is great. The info is not compressed or companded and is sent with full audio spectrum bandwidth. The only trade off of is a minute amount of latency. This new digital technology brings the RF mics closer if not exactly like their wired counterparts.

If your getting distortion and you have the pad engaged there is only 2 ways to eliminate it. Either a higher quality ( or digital ) RF system, or going back to a wired mic.


To make a few corrections. 

Companding is a contraction of compressing and expanding.  It is used for noise reduction and to fit a wider dynamic range signal into a smaller dynamic range signal carrier.  It uses a specific fixed compression (not variable based on available signal level) at the transmitter with a corresponding fixed inverse expansion at the receiver.  See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companding
None of the analogue wireless that I am aware of employ a variable compressor.  Some companding circuits do sound better than others.
Not all digital wireless are companding free.  In fact there are only a couple out there that are recommended for use in measurement for this very reason. 

Analogue systems do not "eliminate the audio spectrum that is considered worthless".  That is what many digital audio codecs do.  Analogue systems may have fixed (not variable) limits on their frequency response that are almost always more limited than their digital counterparts.

Digital RF MICS take much more bandwidth per channel to create the same fidelity as their analogue counterparts.  This is one of their drawbacks currently.  Within a given price range there are some digital options now that are far better sonically than their analogue counterparts.  Shure ULX-D is one.  They are even sonically better than Shure UHF-R analogue but not Sennheiser 2000 or 3000 series analogue.  I would say they are sonically equal to or better than Shure Axient although Axient provides many other solutions to reception issues.  Sennheiser 9000 series digital sounds better than all of these.  I have not had a chance to use the digital offerings from Lectrosonics but their systems enjoy a very deserved reputation for high quality both in ruggedness and in audio signal fidelity.  Line 6 falls short in the professional audio world both in sonic quality and in channel count/density.

Lee
Logged
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.

David Sturzenbecher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1717
  • So. Dak.
    • Sturz Audio
Re: Shure wireless distortion
« Reply #18 on: April 08, 2015, 08:03:03 am »



To make a few corrections. 

Within a given price range there are some digital options now that are far better sonically than their analogue counterparts.  Shure ULX-D is one.  They are even sonically better than Shure UHF-R analogue but not Sennheiser 2000 or 3000 series analogue.  I would say they are sonically equal to or better than Shure Axient although Axient provides many other solutions to reception issues.  .

Lee

Lee,
The Shure UHF-R and the Axient have the exact same RF radios on board. So they should, and in my experience,  sound the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
Audio Systems Design Engineer
Daktronics, Inc.
CTS-D, CTS-I
AES Full Member

Lee Buckalew

  • Classic LAB
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1340
  • St. Louis, MO area
    • Pro Sound Advice, Inc.
Re: Shure wireless distortion
« Reply #19 on: April 08, 2015, 08:44:20 am »

Lee,
The Shure UHF-R and the Axient have the exact same RF radios on board. So they should, and in my experience,  sound the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, but ULX-D sounds better.  It has some slight shortcomings in RF reception compared to UHF-R and then there is Axient.  Amazing capability in the RF realm, slightly decreased sonic quality compared to ULX-D.

Lee
Logged
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: Shure wireless distortion
« Reply #19 on: April 08, 2015, 08:44:20 am »


Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.079 seconds with 23 queries.