ProSoundWeb Community
Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => LAB: The Classic Live Audio Board => Topic started by: Tom Harrison on December 19, 2018, 02:13:33 AM
-
Hi guys
Anybody have experience or have heard of these systems and can offer some perpectives? Sennheiser Digital 6000 vs Shure Axient Digital. I'm just looking for 2 money channels for vocal. Which is superior in sound quality and noise floor? These are money channels and must be top tier. We're not worrying about RF performance or ability to network with others. I've read some reviews for Axient Digital and they're claiming that these are the best things out there. Digital 6000 systems are all over TV and big shows, I don't think its due to Sennheiser sponsorship. There must be exquisite quality to them especially with MD9235 capsules. Unless Taylor Swift, Adele, Ed Sheeran, Bruno Mars, Beyonce, Pink etc are all getting great endorsement money to be using them lol.
-
My hands-on experience with Axient Digital is limited but I was very impressed with the audio quality, noise floor and RF performance on 10mW.
No experience with the Sennheiser D6K and not yet seen any in person.
-
My hands-on experience with Axient Digital is limited but I was very impressed with the audio quality, noise floor and RF performance on 10mW.
No experience with the Sennheiser D6K and not yet seen any in person.
If they're on par with Sennheiser then a lot of money can be saved. The price difference is a lot. I think Axient with KSM9 capsules can get quite close if not equal.
-
...We're not worrying about RF performance...
Then why go with wireless at all? Save the money and get a hardwired version.
Your priorities are in the wrong place.
If you want the wireless for how it’s perceived by the artist and audience, go for it, but it’s money wasted in my opinion.
You [should] spec and pay for gear based on its performance - and in the case of wireless devices, RF quality & audio quality are both tied up in that whether you like it or not.
-
He who haseth the Sennheiser will be the top dog in the market.
Shure beats it in packaging (4 channel) but Sennheisers sonics...especially with 9235, which is a dynamic head is tops.
To get the best outta the Shure don't burden it with the KSM9...go DPA.
-
He who haseth the Sennheiser will be the top dog in the market.
Shure beats it in packaging (4 channel) but Sennheisers sonics...especially with 9235, which is a dynamic head is tops.
To get the best outta the Shure don't burden it with the KSM9...go DPA.
The RF performance of both systems is as good as it gets just now. Given proper antenna set up and frequency coordination etc, they'll both do an excellent job and deliver clean, great sounding audio.
Like others, I feel you're focusing on the wrong thing here. In terms of actual sound quality, all the system does is digitise and deliver what comes in the mic, and for that you're not looking at the wireless system so much as the capsule and mic head etc.
The top of the range shure and sennheiser mic heads all sound great, but suit different voices, and there are other popular options like d:facto and SE electronics etc.
If you're focused on sound quality then you should really be looking at trying a few mics and seeing what suits your artist best. Then the choice of axient or 6000 simply delivers that audio to the desk, and both with do a great job so it's just whatever works out with the chosen head.
K
-
He who haseth the Sennheiser will be the top dog in the market.
Shure beats it in packaging (4 channel) but Sennheisers sonics...especially with 9235, which is a dynamic head is tops.
To get the best outta the Shure don't burden it with the KSM9...go DPA.
I've mounted the 9235 onto ULXD transmitter with an adapter and can vote for its quality. Sennheiser do boosted a hell lot of mids and highs inside that mic. I have not seen that much EQ preloaded into the mic but they sounded great. The DPA wired version is great. I couldn't get enough gain out of the ULXD transmitter for the DPA. I had to boost north of 10-15db to get to match up with KSM9 and all that gain that brought noise with it. Maybe the Axient transmitter can provide more juice. Definitely will have to find the Shure reps for a demo.
-
The RF performance of both systems is as good as it gets just now. Given proper antenna set up and frequency coordination etc, they'll both do an excellent job and deliver clean, great sounding audio.
Like others, I feel you're focusing on the wrong thing here. In terms of actual sound quality, all the system does is digitise and deliver what comes in the mic, and for that you're not looking at the wireless system so much as the capsule and mic head etc.
The top of the range shure and sennheiser mic heads all sound great, but suit different voices, and there are other popular options like d:facto and SE electronics etc.
If you're focused on sound quality then you should really be looking at trying a few mics and seeing what suits your artist best. Then the choice of axient or 6000 simply delivers that audio to the desk, and both with do a great job so it's just whatever works out with the chosen head.
K
Somewhere in my mind feel that Shure and Sennheiser are not quite equal in RF and noise performance. We've always found that Sennheiser delivers clean audio with much lower noise and pretty flat frequency response compared to others. I guess the only way to settle this is head to head comparison. I have the MD9235 capsules with adapters that I can mount directly on the Shure transmitters. We can test one on Shure and one on the Digital 6000 and see if there's any perceivable difference. I know for a fact that I need to boost a lot more gain on the Shure to get the MD9235 to a proper level. Sennheiser transmitter requires 7Volts for its capsule and Shure doesn't provide that much.
-
The Sennheiser transmitters have that distinctive little thing sticking out the back end. I wonder if the show designers are actually demanding that look now?
-
The Sennheiser transmitters have that distinctive little thing sticking out the back end. I wonder if the show designers are actually demanding that look now?
Lol the shark fin antennas must be in high demand at the Grammy. The SKM5200 and D6000/9000 fins are about the same in length, definitely noticeable. Beyonce has the transmitter in gold, must be digging it.
-
Beyonce has the transmitter in gold, must be digging it.
That would make her a Kardashian.
-
Lectrosonics Venue2 should be in the running here, as well. HHa TX with a DPA D:Facto capsule.
Venue2 is digital hybrid wireless. No Compander. Integrated talkback function. Good rack density (6ch/1U), up to 100mW TX power.
Hi guys
Anybody have experience or have heard of these systems and can offer some perpectives? Sennheiser Digital 6000 vs Shure Axient Digital. I'm just looking for 2 money channels for vocal. Which is superior in sound quality and noise floor? These are money channels and must be top tier. We're not worrying about RF performance or ability to network with others. I've read some reviews for Axient Digital and they're claiming that these are the best things out there. Digital 6000 systems are all over TV and big shows, I don't think its due to Sennheiser sponsorship. There must be exquisite quality to them especially with MD9235 capsules. Unless Taylor Swift, Adele, Ed Sheeran, Bruno Mars, Beyonce, Pink etc are all getting great endorsement money to be using them lol.
-
The Shure Axient is only worth it if you go with the whole system. This means doubling the cost. They still have not released the Auto switching body pack yet making the system even in its entirety somewhat useless. One company I work with has a 6 pack of these and they are very nice, but without the body pack and HH units being able to auto switch yet, it is just a really expensive interface that eliminates the need for WWB.....
-
The Shure Axient is only worth it if you go with the whole system. This means doubling the cost. They still have not released the Auto switching body pack yet making the system even in its entirety somewhat useless. One company I work with has a 6 pack of these and they are very nice, but without the body pack and HH units being able to auto switch yet, it is just a really expensive interface that eliminates the need for WWB.....
I have to humbly disagree...
The wideband tuning of the tx and rx across the entire legal spectrum has made touring life so much easier with these.
And as we run a bunch of other rf gear as well as coordinating with the local environment, there is always a need for WWB or IAS.
The 6000 gear is very nice stuff as well.
Disclaimer: I work for folks who have been Shure endorsees for many years.
-
I love the Axient Shure stuff don't get me wrong, but without the auto switching body packs it is a moot system........ The Shure Axient system has a standalone controller that acts as the antenna hub and controls the auto channel switching. It by itself is good enough to not truly need WWB provided you don't have to do crazy things like integration or coordination with other vendors and products. Yes the WWB and IAS are indispensable in that case, but for the more basic and rudimentary stuff, you can live without it. My only point being, that until Shure releases the transmitters that are auto channel switching capable, it is really just an expensive ULXD with an extra antenna distribution and coordination hardware unit.
-
SONYs new DWX wireless has auto switching body packs, quad diversity antennas and superb audio quality.
Just had a demo system in for a month, very impressive.
https://pro.sony/en_CO/products/dwx-digital-series-receivers/dwr-r03d
-
I love the Axient Shure stuff don't get me wrong, but without the auto switching body packs it is a moot system........ The Shure Axient system has a standalone controller that acts as the antenna hub and controls the auto channel switching. It by itself is good enough to not truly need WWB provided you don't have to do crazy things like integration or coordination with other vendors and products. Yes the WWB and IAS are indispensable in that case, but for the more basic and rudimentary stuff, you can live without it. My only point being, that until Shure releases the transmitters that are auto channel switching capable, it is really just an expensive ULXD with an extra antenna distribution and coordination hardware unit.
So there's some confusion over the "Axient" name.
Original Axient was roughly UHF-R with all the remote control and automatic frequency switching. Very expensive by the time you bought all the parts, including the Spectrum Manager, the Showlink access points, etc.
Axient Digital has two options - at the entry level is what I'd call "UHF-D", a relatively affordable digital system that's the next step beyond ULX-D. Great RF and audio performance, usual Shure ruggedness. Then there's the replacement for the original analog Axient, which is the ADX remote-controllable transmitters. Same Spectrum Manager as before, and an updated Showlink. Both versions of Axient Digital use the same receivers, so you could have a big system with just a few money channels that can do the automatic frequency change when interference happens.
-
Hi guys
Anybody have experience or have heard of these systems and can offer some perpectives? Sennheiser Digital 6000 vs Shure Axient Digital. I'm just looking for 2 money channels for vocal. Which is superior in sound quality and noise floor? These are money channels and must be top tier. We're not worrying about RF performance or ability to network with others. I've read some reviews for Axient Digital and they're claiming that these are the best things out there. Digital 6000 systems are all over TV and big shows, I don't think its due to Sennheiser sponsorship. There must be exquisite quality to them especially with MD9235 capsules. Unless Taylor Swift, Adele, Ed Sheeran, Bruno Mars, Beyonce, Pink etc are all getting great endorsement money to be using them lol.
I have used both systems extensively this past year, AD on a number of shows from January-April, and both with one of the artists you mention above on an 8 month tour (hint: it's the one who's money channel made the most money, ever).
Both systems are great and represent the pinnacle of performance RF engineering (so far).
A few notes on where and how they differ:
1) Tuning range: As John Sulek mentioned, the AD will tune over the full 470-616 MHz range (which is all that we will have to work with in a year or so). The D6000 receiver will tune from 470-638 MHz, but the transmitters are in two ranges: A1-A4 (470-558 MHz) and A5-A8 (550-638 MHz), so to have full range flexibility, you would need to buy four mics (or at least 4 bodies, you could save a bit and swap capsules). I had both ranges and occasionally would have to sub an A5-8 for an A1-4 when spectrum was tight (like in Australia, where you can't go below 520 MHz).
2) Someone compared AD to ULXD. They differ in a few key areas: Build quality (AD is more rugged) and diversity. AD has the same diversity scheme as UHF-R / Axient Analog, the name for which eludes me at the moment, but the short strokes is that both A&B are always on and the diversity system passes the best of both on to the RX stage (gross oversimplification, I know!). In, ULXD the diversity system is just taking A or B, whichever it deems to be the strongest signal.
3) Coordination: I would routinely run a couple of AD channels 300 KHz apart with no issues. D6000's minimum separation is recommended at 600 KHz, which I also took advantage of with no ill effects, many times. That said, two AD Tx in close proximity (like almost touching) will definitely produce some low level intermod products (at least at the high power setting we were using) while I was never able to observe that with two D6000's.
4) Noise floor: I can't really speak to this as we were using the AES outs almost exclusively.
5) Appearance: I have known some TV directors to prefer the Sennheiser mics over the Shure's for aesthetic reasons in that they tend to be a bit slimmer. That said, you obviously see both on TV all the time.
6) Monitoring: Both have 1/4" headphone jacks on the front panel (another thing AD has that ULXD doesn't). With the AD, you can monitor multiple receivers off of one jack, in one unit, provided they are networked together (this is something I had been asking both companies for for YEARS).
Visually, I found the D6000 display is a bit easier to read than the AD, but when networked, WWB is a way better program than the current WSM (there's apparently a new version of WSM coming, but launch date has so far been TBD...)
So, in terms of making a decision, both products are an excellent choice on a technical level, which means you are really left with visual and sonic preferences as the deciding factor (well, that, and the spectrum range thing I mentioned in #2).
-
I love the Axient Shure stuff don't get me wrong, but without the auto switching body packs it is a moot system........ The Shure Axient system has a standalone controller that acts as the antenna hub and controls the auto channel switching. It by itself is good enough to not truly need WWB provided you don't have to do crazy things like integration or coordination with other vendors and products. Yes the WWB and IAS are indispensable in that case, but for the more basic and rudimentary stuff, you can live without it. My only point being, that until Shure releases the transmitters that are auto channel switching capable, it is really just an expensive ULXD with an extra antenna distribution and coordination hardware unit.
Shure claims that the technology is different than ULXD and therefore better sound quality. I have not heard the Axient Digital but do have ULXD and QLXD in the inventory. They sound pretty good but obviously there's another level to it.
-
Lectrosonics Venue2 should be in the running here, as well. HHa TX with a DPA D:Facto capsule.
Venue2 is digital hybrid wireless. No Compander. Integrated talkback function. Good rack density (6ch/1U), up to 100mW TX power.
Yea Lectrosonics transmitters can definitely provide up to 15volts to a capsule. Neumann capsules sound best with that much juice. DPA will require similar power too. I guess Lectrosonics are more theaters and films than live sound. I have not seen the name pops up on riders.
-
I have used both systems extensively this past year, AD on a number of shows from January-April, and both with one of the artists you mention above on an 8 month tour (hint: it's the one who's money channel made the most money, ever).
Both systems are great and represent the pinnacle of performance RF engineering (so far).
A few notes on where and how they differ:
1) Tuning range: As John Sulek mentioned, the AD will tune over the full 470-616 MHz range (which is all that we will have to work with in a year or so). The D6000 receiver will tune from 470-638 MHz, but the transmitters are in two ranges: A1-A4 (470-558 MHz) and A5-A8 (550-638 MHz), so to have full range flexibility, you would need to buy four mics (or at least 4 bodies, you could save a bit and swap capsules). I had both ranges and occasionally would have to sub an A5-8 for an A1-4 when spectrum was tight (like in Australia, where you can't go below 520 MHz).
2) Someone compared AD to ULXD. They differ in a few key areas: Build quality (AD is more rugged) and diversity. AD has the same diversity scheme as UHF-R / Axient Analog, the name for which eludes me at the moment, but the short strokes is that both A&B are always on and the diversity system passes the best of both on to the RX stage (gross oversimplification, I know!). In, ULXD the diversity system is just taking A or B, whichever it deems to be the strongest signal.
3) Coordination: I would routinely run a couple of AD channels 300 KHz apart with no issues. D6000's minimum separation is recommended at 600 KHz, which I also took advantage of with no ill effects, many times. That said, two AD Tx in close proximity (like almost touching) will definitely produce some low level intermod products (at least at the high power setting we were using) while I was never able to observe that with two D6000's.
4) Noise floor: I can't really speak to this as we were using the AES outs almost exclusively.
5) Appearance: I have known some TV directors to prefer the Sennheiser mics over the Shure's for aesthetic reasons in that they tend to be a bit slimmer. That said, you obviously see both on TV all the time.
6) Monitoring: Both have 1/4" headphone jacks on the front panel (another thing AD has that ULXD doesn't). With the AD, you can monitor multiple receivers off of one jack, in one unit, provided they are networked together (this is something I had been asking both companies for for YEARS).
Visually, I found the D6000 display is a bit easier to read than the AD, but when networked, WWB is a way better program than the current WSM (there's apparently a new version of WSM coming, but launch date has so far been TBD...)
So, in terms of making a decision, both products are an excellent choice on a technical level, which means you are really left with visual and sonic preferences as the deciding factor (well, that, and the spectrum range thing I mentioned in #2).
Sonic preferences is definitely a factor. Which system do you like to listen to? Which capsules do you prefer? I like KK204/205 but they're not meant for loud stages and do require a bunch of EQ lift to cut through. KSM9 is nice, similar sound to KK204, a lil more feedback resistant. DPA d:facto is very nice with very controlled proximity effect. MD9235 is nice and cuts through a busy mix with ease due to heavily EQ'ed capsule.
-
I guess Lectrosonics are more theaters and films than live sound. I have not seen the name pops up on riders.
Lectrosonics is huge with location recording and ENG, but very rare in live music.
-
Lectrosonics is huge with location recording and ENG, but very rare in live music.
I think that you will see that change over the next couple of years. The Duet IEM system is definitely making some inroads and I think that the mic systems will follow. As well, the R400a and plug-on transmitter are quite common in the system tuning set-ups of many live sound kits.
-
Lectrosonics is working hard to push into the live event market. The company already has huge market penetration into film & broadcast for several good reasons:
Multiple receiver options (rack, desktop, slot-mount, and portable battery powered models) that can be used with any of the TX models. This gives a lot of flexibility for rentals.
Currently 7 different TX options including handheld, plug-on and five belt packs including the ridiculously small SSM TX. Most have more TX power (up to 100mW on most current wideband units, up to 250mW on older stuff) than other systems on the market. The TX are all made out of billet aluminum, too. Tough.
Superior tracking filters to filter out unwanted signals. When combined with the higher TX power you don't need to frequency hop as often.
As Ike mentions, the Lectro stuff can be used for SMAART measurement, as well, because there are no companders in the signal chain. This is true of all the current Lectrosonics UHF TX and RX.
I work in Lectro Wireless Designer software frequently and have nothing but nice things to say about it.
I work with Lectrosonics frequently, and there are demo units available if anyone needs to investigate further.
I think that you will see that change over the next couple of years. The Duet IEM system is definitely making some inroads and I think that the mic systems will follow. As well, the R400a and plug-on transmitter are quite common in the system tuning set-ups of many live sound kits.
Lectrosonics is huge with location recording and ENG, but very rare in live music.
Yea Lectrosonics transmitters can definitely provide up to 15volts to a capsule. Neumann capsules sound best with that much juice. DPA will require similar power too. I guess Lectrosonics are more theaters and films than live sound. I have not seen the name pops up on riders.
-
Lectrosonics is huge with location recording and ENG, but very rare in live music.
They're also doing quite well in the theater market, both on Broadway and up here in Canada.
-
I'm patiently waiting for a new VENUE series that has receivers that do the full 470-638 range, with transmitters to match, along with Dante output. I'm sure it'll come along.
I do like that the Lectro HH transmitters can use Shure (and other) capsules.
-
I'm patiently waiting for a new VENUE series that has receivers that do the full 470-638 range, with transmitters to match, along with Dante output. I'm sure it'll come along.
I do like that the Lectro HH transmitters can use Shure (and other) capsules.
For some reasons they never tried to do AES output. Dante will probably come along with AES in a single receiver.
-
I'm patiently waiting for a new VENUE series that has receivers that do the full 470-638 range, with transmitters to match, along with Dante output. I'm sure it'll come along.
I do like that the Lectro HH transmitters can use Shure (and other) capsules.
Looks like my wish has come true.
https://www.lectrosonics.com/US/lectrosonics-introduces-the-d-squared-digital-wireless-microphone-system.html
The 3 different modes of diversity are impressive, along with the talkback feature.
Pricing looks to be similar to Shure Axient. If not looking to fulfill riders, would the Lectro be a better choice than Axient, in terms of RF performance?
-
Looks like my wish has come true.
https://www.lectrosonics.com/US/lectrosonics-introduces-the-d-squared-digital-wireless-microphone-system.html
The 3 different modes of diversity are impressive, along with the talkback feature.
Pricing looks to be similar to Shure Axient. If not looking to fulfill riders, would the Lectro be a better choice than Axient, in terms of RF performance?
It's not easy to generalize such a comparison between a brand new product and another that is field proven in large scale deployments over a couple of years.
Lectro's reputation is well-earned as top tier, though not flawless (what is?). It's likely to be a home run.
-
It's not easy to generalize such a comparison between a brand new product and another that is field proven in large scale deployments over a couple of years.
Not easy, of course. I try to ask the hard questions.
I'd love to do the analysis myself, but alas I am not yet at that level to determine RF performance quantitatively!
-
A programmable switch on the outside of the housing can be configured for push-to-talk, cough, mute, talkback, power on/off, or be bypassed
From the Lectrosonics page for the new DHu transmitter. I have seen a similar option on Sennheiser but never on Shure (not sure if something like Axient can can possible be setup to do that).
Can be a very useful feature for HOW and I can image of some live bands.