Print

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

[Justin Quinn]

I'm fairly intrigued about these new SLX digital units...  I'm curious to hear thoughts from the community.

The navigation and screen looks nice for the price point.  Is my understanding correct that these lack WWB support? which would be somewhat of a deal breaker for me personally (I love my QLXDs and think I'll stick with those systems), but I definitely can see where this product could fit into the market.  I wish they used the SB900 batteries and charging docks, that way users could just invest into 1 platform, but oh well.

[Erik Jerde]

I'm fairly intrigued about these new SLX digital units...  I'm curious to hear thoughts from the community.

The navigation and screen looks nice for the price point.  Is my understanding correct that these lack WWB support? which would be somewhat of a deal breaker for me personally (I love my QLXDs and think I'll stick with those systems), but I definitely can see where this product could fit into the market.  I wish they used the SB900 batteries and charging docks, that way users could just invest into 1 platform, but oh well.

By lacking WWB support what's meant is they don't have network ports so you can't use them to scan or to automatically deploy a coordination.  You can count on them being available as inventory units in WWB for coordination.  You just have to manually deploy the results and find another solution for scanning.  You also won't be able to monitor them from WWB.

If they have the same RF performance as QLX-D then it's a worthwhile tradeoff for some jobs.  I wouldn't want it on anything large/complex though.

[Philip Roberts]

Is my understanding correct that these lack WWB support?

If they can't be controlled by WWB why do they have a network port?

I'll be interested to see how this work out once we get end user reports.

Philip

[Russell Ault]

If they can't be controlled by WWB why do they have a network port? [...]

Some of the literature mentions automation integration (e.g. Crestron, etc.).

(If Shure has actually created a device that can talk to Crestron but not to their own software, that may well be the most strikingly obvious example of crippleware I've seen in a long time...)

Of course, other than 0.4 ms of latency, the biggest difference I've noticed so far between SLX-D and QLX-D is the price, and if SLX-D were to get full WWB support I think I'd see that as the beginning of the end of the QLX-D line.

-Russ

[Justin Quinn]

If they can't be controlled by WWB why do they have a network port?

I'll be interested to see how this work out once we get end user reports.

Philip

They're using the Ethernet port as a means to allow communication between multiple receivers.  For example, multiple receivers can be connected to a switch and one can scan the RF environment and deploy frequencies to all other receivers automatically.  However from what we can tell, you won't be able to connect a computer to this network and use WWB to deploy, control, or monitor SLX-D receivers (but as mentioned, they can be coordinated for in the software).
However, the user's manual does state that SLX-D units can be updated via Shure Update Utility on a computer on the same network.

One difference from QLXD is the density- SLX-D systems, under ideal conditions, are supposed to be able to get 30-or-so systems online per frequency band whereas QLXD is supposed to get closer to 60 in ideal conditions.  QLXD's have up to a 64mhz tuning bandwidth where SLX-D's have up to a 44mhz tuning bandwidth. QLXD is supposed to be able to squeeze 17 channels in a 6mhz TV channel, not sure how many SLX-D could achieve.

[Justin Goodman]

In my experience, QLX-D components are a serious step up from SLX components — seems like that carries through here as well. Looking at the unit, this almost looks like a BLX+ as opposed to a QLX-D minus, if that makes sense. I think that’s further confirmed by lack of connectivity with WWB — just seems like it’s meant for weekend giggers, DJs, churches run by volunteers, etc as opposed to wireless professionals. It does not make sense to me, however, that they’d make a dual SLX-D rx whereas QLX-D are limited to single rx’s. The difference between one splitter allowing for 8 channels vs 4 channels starts to get pretty significant as racks scale.

Still, if you find BLX unacceptable and/or want digital, it does seem like SLX-D may cannibalize some sales from QLX-D since that was previously the only option other than GLX-D (and who wants to live in the 2.4ghz band?).

[Geert Friedhof]

SLX-D comes with 1/4 wave antennas, QLX-D has 1/2 wave antennas as standard. You can add the 1/2 waves to SLX, but that will set you back a benjamin or so.

Still i am looking to buy 2 double B58 sets and a couple of beltpacks when they are available.

[Justin Quinn]

In my experience, QLX-D components are a serious step up from SLX components — seems like that carries through here as well. Looking at the unit, this almost looks like a BLX+ as opposed to a QLX-D minus, if that makes sense. I think that’s further confirmed by lack of connectivity with WWB — just seems like it’s meant for weekend giggers, DJs, churches run by volunteers, etc as opposed to wireless professionals. It does not make sense to me, however, that they’d make a dual SLX-D rx whereas QLX-D are limited to single rx’s. The difference between one splitter allowing for 8 channels vs 4 channels starts to get pretty significant as racks scale.

Still, if you find BLX unacceptable and/or want digital, it does seem like SLX-D may cannibalize some sales from QLX-D since that was previously the only option other than GLX-D (and who wants to live in the 2.4ghz band?).

I was thinking that Shure's product line lacked a more affordable UHF digital system, and here it is.  I think this is great for what you have mentioned (DJs, small churches, etc.)  I love my QLXDs but I think I may get a few of these SLXDs to stick in my DJ rack and wedding ceremony rack and move the QLXDs to heavier duty tasks since I don't use WWB during weddings anyways.

[MikeHarris]

and where is the 4 channel receiver

[Scott Helmke]

and where is the 4 channel receiver

Available in both ULX-D and Axient Digital!   

I kind of doubt you'll ever see a quad receiver in the cheap lines.

[MikeHarris]

Available in both ULX-D and Axient Digital!   

I kind of doubt you'll ever see a quad receiver in the cheap lines.

sad..as its the lower end of the market that would avoid wireless abuse with a 4 channel receiver with builtin distro..
pros kno antenna distribution important...

[Andrien (No Last Name)]

sad..as its the lower end of the market that would avoid wireless abuse with a 4 channel receiver with builtin distro..
pros kno antenna distribution important...

True, but at least Digital doesn't seems to have much issue without distro compared to their analog counterpart.

Hopefully SLX-D is price the same or lower compared to SLX, but I really wonder does it really cost that much to include Workbench support? Isn't the digital technology suppose to be cheaper in radio design compared to the analog counterpart? I mean they already include an Ethernet port and I doubt it cost much to support WWB.

[Justin Quinn]

True, but at least Digital doesn't seems to have much issue without distro compared to their analog counterpart.

Hopefully SLX-D is price the same or lower compared to SLX, but I really wonder does it really cost that much to include Workbench support? Isn't the digital technology suppose to be cheaper in radio design compared to the analog counterpart? I mean they already include an Ethernet port and I doubt it cost much to support WWB.

SLX-D is more expensive than SLX, or at least seems to be based off of the retailers listing it now.  You can get an SLX (analog) reciever/SM58 combo for $599, whereas that same configuration in SLX-D will cost you $749 (from B&H), and just for reference, that configuration in QLXD is $999.

[Justin Quinn]

Shure just announced WWB 6.13.3 which includes "SLX-D support" but whether that means networked monitoring and control thereof or just that it has profiles for SLX-D units so that they can be coordinated as an offline device I'm not sure... I sent a message over to Shure but haven't heard.

[John Sulek]

Shure just announced WWB 6.13.3 which includes "SLX-D support" but whether that means networked monitoring and control thereof or just that it has profiles for SLX-D units so that they can be coordinated as an offline device I'm not sure... I sent a message over to Shure but haven't heard.

I looked at the WWB update today and tuned into the Shure "tech talk" webinar where they talked about the SLX-D launch.
No control or monitoring via WWB, but the SLX-D units are available in the inventory tab so you can coordinate frequencies to manually deploy.
The Shure folks did mention that you can network six units together and do some "group set-up" functions. I had to bail before they got into the specifics.

[Russell Ault]

[...] No control or monitoring via WWB, but the SLX-D units are available in the inventory tab so you can coordinate frequencies to manually deploy. [...]

Crippleware it is, then. Makes sense to preserve market segmentation, but still a little annoying.

-Russ

[David Peterson (IronFilm)]

SLX-D is more expensive than SLX, or at least seems to be based off of the retailers listing it now.  You can get an SLX (analog) reciever/SM58 combo for $599, whereas that same configuration in SLX-D will cost you $749 (from B&H), and just for reference, that configuration in QLXD is $999.

SLX has been out for yonks and yonks, QLXD has been out for a little while, but SLX-D only just got announced.

Would it be correct to assume with time, that street pricing will ease up a little and come down to say $650 for SLX-D once SLX stock has been discontinued and cleared out? That would then put a sizable pricing difference between SLX-D and QLX-D

[Justin Quinn]

SLX has been out for yonks and yonks, QLXD has been out for a little while, but SLX-D only just got announced.

Would it be correct to assume with time, that street pricing will ease up a little and come down to say $650 for SLX-D once SLX stock has been discontinued and cleared out? That would then put a sizable pricing difference between SLX-D and QLX-D

That would make sense, at least.  Shure likes to make a product's replacement around the same price as what it's replacing.  If these systems end up being approximately the same cost as an SLX analog system, this would be an amazing deal.

[Geert Friedhof]

In Europe single SLXD with sm58 retails around 530 euro right now (preorder). That is 624 freedom currency. Beta 58 is around 30 euroos more.The dual receiver sets aren't listed yet.

[Justin Quinn]

In Europe single SLXD with sm58 retails around 530 euro right now (preorder). That is 624 freedom currency. Beta 58 is around 30 euroos more.The dual receiver sets aren't listed yet.

That looks promising...

I found it available for preorder on B&H for $699 (single channel SM58) and Sweetwater lists it for the same but says that it's in stock.

[Andrien (No Last Name)]

That looks promising...

I found it available for preorder on B&H for $699 (single channel SM58) and Sweetwater lists it for the same but says that it's in stock.

So far no information on pricing in here, but last update it seems that the main distributor basically take over every Shure Digital and only do direct selling. I can't even get a hand on QLX-D anymore on some shops .

[ProSoundWeb Community]