ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Let's discuss Sennheiser EW-D  (Read 697 times)

Justin Quinn

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
Let's discuss Sennheiser EW-D
« on: June 01, 2021, 12:14:38 pm »

Very interesting launch from Sennheiser.  What's everyone's thoughts?
Logged

MikeHarris

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 466
Re: Let's discuss Sennheiser EW-D
« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2021, 12:42:39 pm »

saw it a few weeks ago...looks solid. batteriesneed tobe removed to charge...no contacts either hh or lav pack
Logged

Justin Quinn

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
Re: Let's discuss Sennheiser EW-D
« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2021, 12:48:45 pm »

Very interesting launch from Sennheiser.  What's everyone's thoughts?
I'm actually surprised that they don't have ethernet and therefore WSM support.  I understand the whole bluetooth thing and why that will be *very* attractive to their target client, but the emission of an ethernet port makes it fairly clear that they're not targeting the upper-mid-range (think the QLXD range of the market).
Of course with Shure's announcement of WWB support for SLXD, things will get interesting.
Logged

Russell Ault

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
  • Edmonton, AB
Re: Let's discuss Sennheiser EW-D
« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2021, 01:23:17 pm »

I'm actually surprised that they don't have ethernet and therefore WSM support. {...}

This is one of the major steps backward that I can see; the other is the so-called "intelligent diversity" scheme (like S/Q/ULX-D have).

-Russ

ETA: Okay, this makes more sense now; Shure's patent on predictive diversity expired in April.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2021, 05:20:59 pm by Russell Ault »
Logged

Simon Lewis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 82
Re: Let's discuss Sennheiser EW-D
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2021, 10:54:59 am »

I'm actually surprised that they don't have ethernet and therefore WSM support.

The EW-100 doesn't have this (but does have 'end user' gadgets like a guitar tuner).

I could foresee a EW-300 or 500 version of the EW-D that has some of the features pros would like, but most likely at a price that doesn't undermine their top level digital offerings too much.
Logged

Andrien (No Last Name)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 101
Re: Let's discuss Sennheiser EW-D
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2021, 12:28:07 pm »

Booked 2 unit for pre-orders, distributors expecting late June/early July arrival. Missed opportunity on WSM tho, but chatting with the sales and technical application manager from Sennheiser Singapore during the presentation seems to indicate release of EW300/EW500 digital derivative but due to chipset shortage it is postponed. Based on the presentation it seems to be targeted as SLX-D competitor and so far the pricing is 11/12 with Sennheiser being the more expensive one.

Some notes from the pre launch:
1. BLE Apps could be paired to either transmitter or receiver, so we could update the beltpack using our phone
2. Doesn't seems to have repeater to extend BLE range
3. BLE range is a lot shorter than the UHF range
4. Receiver seems to be able to control Transmitter (not sure whether that depend on BLE range) if no apps is available
5. 1 mobile phone pairing only (if another phone pair to either transmitter/receiver, the old phone will be forgotten). I hope they could change this though to at least support more than 1 mobile phone connectivity.
6. Maximum of 16 devices per mobile device can be paired with (Showlink seems to be able to support 24 devices per access point, but use Zigbee as protocol)

Missed opportunity:
1. Messed network of BLE (allow expanded range of remote control)
2. WSM network (probably in the 300/500 series)
3. Remote control function on 6000/9000 series too (IIRC both series doesn't have transmitter control from receiver like Shure Axient)

Interesting product and if the remote control function works well at least any sudden interference could be dealt a little bit easier than having beltpack re-synchronize with receiver thru IR.

Some additional information, this product seems to target end user who doesn't have technical know how on Wireless Coordination and just want a system that works easily thru wizards.

edit1: One more information, the lithium charger use Type-C port but the transmitter doesn't support in body charging.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2021, 12:30:56 pm by Andrien (No Last Name) »
Logged

JohnPinchin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
Re: Let's discuss Sennheiser EW-D
« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2021, 02:18:38 pm »

I was about to add a couple of SLXD mic's to replace my aging G3 systems so these are very interesting. 
A shame that at the moment they are only available as EW100 with 835 heads.  I assume my 945 capsules would fit and work but it will be interesting to see some more comparisons between the Shure and Sennheiser systems.   
Logged

Andrien (No Last Name)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 101
Re: Let's discuss Sennheiser EW-D
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2021, 04:45:53 am »

I was about to add a couple of SLXD mic's to replace my aging G3 systems so these are very interesting. 
A shame that at the moment they are only available as EW100 with 835 heads.  I assume my 945 capsules would fit and work but it will be interesting to see some more comparisons between the Shure and Sennheiser systems.
They do sell the base set (EW-D SKM-S for Handheld, EW-D SK for Beltpack) and based on the presentation 945 seems compatible. If anyone is interested, this is the compatible capsule based on the presentation.
Dynamic Series: 835,45,935,945,42,435,445
Condensor Series: 865,965, 9002,9004, 204,205

I'm not sure whether they use the same connector as other EW series, but I think it should be.
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: Let's discuss Sennheiser EW-D
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2021, 04:45:53 am »


Pages: [1]   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.019 seconds with 19 queries.