Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jeffrey l jones]

Have never used any kind of cordless mic. I play in a loud classic rock band. We turn the monitors up. Right now we use EV 767 wired mic's . Monitors are Yamaha CM12V's powered by Crown XLS2500. Every member (4) has a monitor. The EV mic's are great not feeding back. I move around ALOT!
Wanted to move to wireless mic. Was looking at

Shure PGXD24/Beta58A Digital Wireless System with Beta 58A Mic

And

Electro-Voice RE2-N7 Wireless System with EV 767a Dynamic Element

Has anyone use either of these? Leaning toward EV because of success of the wired versions .
EditDeleteReport#1+ QuoteReply

[Andrew Henderson]

Do you have the ability to rent or borrow both versions before purchasing?

If you're really happy with what you have now, except for the freedom factor, I'd go with the EV. The 767a is a great mic. I haven't used their wireless units though; maybe some others can chime in on RF reliability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brian Jojade]

Haven't used the EV, but I'd stay far away from the PGX for musical use. It's fine for some light duty speaking, but the sound quality will do nothing but disappoint. Limited headroom, moderate range, not something I'd recommend.

[Ivan Beaver]

Have never used any kind of cordless mic. I play in a loud classic rock band. We turn the monitors up. Right now we use EV 767 wired mic's . Monitors are Yamaha CM12V's powered by Crown XLS2500. Every member (4) has a monitor. The EV mic's are great not feeding back. I move around ALOT!
Wanted to move to wireless mic. Was looking at

Shure PGXD24/Beta58A Digital Wireless System with Beta 58A Mic

And

Electro-Voice RE2-N7 Wireless System with EV 767a Dynamic Element

Has anyone use either of these? Leaning toward EV because of success of the wired versions .
EditDeleteReport#1+ QuoteReply

It is not wirelss or wired that determines feedback or not-but rather the element head-where it is positioned (in relation to the position of the speakers etc.

Remember.  Even the BEST MOST EXPENSIVE wireless mic you can buy is ALMOST as good as a $25 mic cable------

[Tim Halligan]

Remember.  Even the BEST MOST EXPENSIVE wireless mic you can buy is ALMOST as good as a $25 mic cable------

This!

Wireless does not necessarily equal "more pro."

Added bonus with cabled mics: not having to worry about available RF spectrum.

Cheers,
Tim

[Kevin McDonough]

Remember.  Even the BEST MOST EXPENSIVE wireless mic you can buy is ALMOST as good as a $25 mic cable------

Saw this kind of statement a few years ago, and really hits home. 

A simple wire give you (theoretically) perfect delivery of whatever the mic picks up to the desk. You can spend several thousand dollars/pounds on the most top of the range wireless system you can get, and that will be just about as good as a $10 bit of copper.

So you have two things to look at. Firstly the mic itself (the Beta 58 part), is the mic suitable in terms of sound and feedback rejection for your sound, does it get you what you're looking for. This will be especially difficult if you've spent a long time dialling in the settings for your current mics, EQing feedback frequencies or learning how to set things up to avoid feedback with your loud monitors. A lot of this work may have to be done again moving to a different brand or model of mic.

Would you be able to borrow/try even a wired beta58?  just on that alone you may not like the sound or may not get enough gain before feedback for your liking and that may rule that mic out straight away.

On top of the actual sound of the mic, you then have the wireless link: quality of the delivery of the sound from the mic to the PA, or how much is lost compared to the wired version of the same mic.

And as others have suggested even if you like a Beta58, PGX wireless system isn't great quality and you may well be disappointed. While again it may be worth trying it, we normally spec Sennheiser and try and tell people that if people want something that will replace a wired mic and give a good level of sound in this situation, aim for at least Sennheiser ew100, preferably ew300.

While I've not used it personally, the GLXd range with a beta58 would be roughly equivalent in terms of price to the ew100, and I would assume would be a definite step up from PGX.

k

[lindsay Dean]

 PGX and PGXD
Are not the same thing.
 I have the PGXD With an sm86 capsule at have been very happy. It's indistinguishable between Wireless and wired.
The capsule has great feedback rejection.
As with all Wireless units
 You need to keep the receiver/ transmitter close as possible.
. I've had no dropouts. No problems. No noise. No anything. It's a good product.
Of course environment affects performance of all Wireless units

[Brian Jojade]

I have the PGXD With an sm86 capsule at have been very happy. It's indistinguishable between Wireless and wired.

Maybe to you it's indistinguishable.  But that's certainly not true.  The PGXD is a digital signal, and it's leaps and bounds better than the pile of crap PGX system.  However, there are definite shortcomings that you can run into with the system compared to a wired connection. The fact that it's a digital system means there is latency involved.  There's a gain adjustment that needs to be set on the mic. If you need the mic to be able to handle a huge dynamic range, such as from different users with different volumes, you need to adjust the mic. You can't simply adjust the trim at the board like you would with a wired mic.  There's no remote gain control available.

The other huge issue with the PGXD mic is that it runs in the 900mhz range.  While this is nice that it doesn't have to coexist alongside TV stations, it does have to coexist with other potential licensed devices that are far more unpredictable.  It's not likely that a new TV station will go up in the middle of your show.  However, since 900mhz is used for other temporary communication devices, it's possible that a broadcast can interfere with you without any warning at all.  For this reason alone, I generally recommend staying away from this system.

[lindsay Dean]

In my experience, it's been great. Your mileage may vary

[Mike Caldwell]

If you like your EV 767 look at the EV RE3 wireless system, there a solid analog wireless system.

The EV RE3 handheld systems will take Shure wireless mic elements and you can get just the EV RE3 wireless mic element and put it on a Shure handheld wireless transmitter.

Just get the RE3-ND76 system if for nothing else the handheld mic transmitter is better built than the Shure stuff unit you get into their higher end models.

[Luke Geis]

What was said about a $25 mic cable being king is true. You can and will have to spend THOUSANDS to get a wireless mic that actually only just performs as well as a $25 cable. The PG series mics are absolute trash no matter if it's the digital one or the solid-state one. They are cheaper than all the rest for a reason. Will it work? Sure, until it doesn't. They are not nearly as reliable and stable as higher dollar options. My opinion is that you have to acquire the QLXD or better to have a reliable and stable operation and even then it is user-based.  Wireless mics are not point and shoot devices; they require rules to be followed in order to have ideal operating conditions and even then they are still susceptible to interference.

[Callan Browne]

Have never used any kind of cordless mic. I play in a loud classic rock band. We turn the monitors up. Right now we use EV 767 wired mic's . Monitors are Yamaha CM12V's powered by Crown XLS2500. Every member (4) has a monitor. The EV mic's are great not feeding back. I move around ALOT!
Wanted to move to wireless mic. Was looking at

Shure PGXD24/Beta58A Digital Wireless System with Beta 58A Mic

And

Electro-Voice RE2-N7 Wireless System with EV 767a Dynamic Element

Has anyone use either of these? Leaning toward EV because of success of the wired versions .
EditDeleteReport#1+ QuoteReply

I went with the Sennheiser ew 500-935 G4 kit about a year ago and it's been rock solid. I've used it with a few different singers and it's been really great so far.

The unit itself is solid, has a battery indicator on the receiver, and can be connected to a computer to scan the local rf environment.

Line of sight helps, and I try to keep it away from any transmitters - same goes for any unit you get.

I know it's not in your list at the moment, but I can highly recommend this set.
Cheers,

[Jonathan Johnson]

The fact that it's a digital system means there is latency involved...

Sometimes, a little latency can be a good thing. (Note I said "a little".)

I've added a few ms of delay to a system to reduce the tendency of feedback. (That's dependent on many factors such as capsule, speaker, placement, room size & shape, etc.) It's not a solution that always works, but it sometimes does.

If you think about it, placing the speakers several feet in front of the performers means that direct sound (from the performers) arrives later than the amplified sound. So, if you delay the amplified sound by an appropriate amount, you can sync it to reduce comb filtering. (Of course, that depends on the listener position, too. Nothing is foolproof!)

[Chris Grimshaw]

If you think about it, placing the speakers several feet in front of the performers means that direct sound (from the performers) arrives later than the amplified sound. So, if you delay the amplified sound by an appropriate amount, you can sync it to reduce comb filtering. (Of course, that depends on the listener position, too. Nothing is foolproof!)

You seem to be suggesting that the sound from the monitors gets to the mic before the sound from the singer's mouth. I'm pretty sure this is false, assuming any kind of sensible mic technique. The mouth is much closer to the mic, so direct sound will clearly arrive first.

Delaying the speaker adjusts the phase curve, so I can see that applying delay might give you a different set of feedback frequencies to work on.

Chris

[Luke Geis]

I will agree that delay can increase GBF, but only if properly implemented. If you delay the microphone input, the sound produced at the monitor is relative so other than hearing the delay, the GBF potential is the same. Now if you delay the monitor only, it is a different story. If you delay the monitor the sound will be at a different phase and can impact the GBF, but then again, simply moving the monitor a few inches up, down, back or forth, will achieve the same thing.

Often times, inverting the polarity of the monitor will achieve a similar effect.  If there is a sensitive frequency, inverting the phase of the monitor may then null instead of couple at that frequency. This in combination with delay can often solve many issues before they even begin. I won't say it is a standard go-to thing to do but is a trick that can be employed if you are having issues.

[Tim McCulloch]

I will agree that delay can increase GBF, but only if properly implemented. If you delay the microphone input, the sound produced at the monitor is relative so other than hearing the delay, the GBF potential is the same. Now if you delay the monitor only, it is a different story. If you delay the monitor the sound will be at a different phase and can impact the GBF, but then again, simply moving the monitor a few inches up, down, back or forth, will achieve the same thing.

Often times, inverting the polarity of the monitor will achieve a similar effect.  If there is a sensitive frequency, inverting the phase of the monitor may then null instead of couple at that frequency. This in combination with delay can often solve many issues before they even begin. I won't say it is a standard go-to thing to do but is a trick that can be employed if you are having issues.

Move a half inch and your polarity inversion stops working.  Adding 3-5ms of delay to the monitor mix (or FOH) changes the frequency of the feedback loop, perhaps to a freq where the system is more stable.

[ProSoundWeb Community]