Sennheiser ch 38 VS Shure digital...

[darrenfry]

Hi all

 

Had a quick search but didn't find much relevant info.

We are currently choosing between Sennheiser 500 series ch 38 radio systems or Shure QLX digital. Does anyone have any real world experience between these systems? We currently have a small stock of Sennheiser and are pretty happy with it but some people here's are pushing the Shure offering.

I have had a read up and see that the digital systems 'should' provide a better sound as it not compressed at any point but I am wary of the 2.4GHz band that it sits in.... Should I be or are they pretty bullet proof in operation? We are a hire company and in different hotels/venues on a daily basis so having a versatile system in terms or spectrum is important.

Anyhow, if anyone has any experience of the Shure system or has experienced both then it would be good to hear your thoughts.

Darren

 

[csg]

we stock 500 G3 kit on ch38, and its proven bulletproof for the last 3 years. A shared 2 year licence is a minimal expense, and whilst it is a shared band, it is dedicated to professional comms / radio systems.

 

Personally I have misgivings over the use of 2.4GHz for any show critical systems, ive seen enough issues with wifi being used for wireless DMX ( GDS uplighters etc) or desk remote control via iPads, all off which have behaved fine in an empty venue, then becoming far less reliable once their are 1000 or so mobile phones continuously trying to latch onto a wifi network.

Im far from an expert in the wifi field, but I need a lot of convincing before using it for wireless mics - where the experience of a CEO etc on a lav + beltpack can make or break your contract...

 

I also have a sneaking suspicion that the government would love radio mics to move onto 2.4GHz, thus enabling a further sell off of existing channels, another reason to vote with your feet, or buying choice.

[Simon Lewis]

There seems to be a tacit decision by at least one manufacturer to make 2.4GHz the new "channel 70" as a "free to use, don't worry about tuning, it works straight out of the box" solution (not that ch 70 really did those things as just about every channel 70 capable Sennheiser system I've seen that's not run by a hire company was set to the first frequency that it ever switched on with!). Channel 70 itself won't disappear but it isn't value for money from the manufacturers' viewpoint to continue making radios that tune to only 2MHz. Shure have already effectively stopped selling channel 70 radios and it is likely that Sennheiser will follow suit in due course.

 

Apart from the Line Six, which in full attack mode buggers up all other 2.4GHz traffic (and later resulted in a "play nicely" mode being implemented) the newer breed of 2.4GHz radios seem to run on one WiFi channel with a second one held as a backup to switch to if the first gets dropped. This seems to work pretty well until there is too much traffic, in which case the system will drop out. So - 2.4GHz will probably work just fine up to the point where there are too many users, when it won't work.

 

G3-500 is a well respected and professionally accepted system. Whilst there may be some benefits to be had with the digital system, I would choose G3 in channel 38.

[Stuart91]

A while ago I had to rush a set of four Sennheisers to a conference at a local hotel. The client had brought along an audience response system, and it couldn't work alongside the 2.4GHz radio mics. I'm not sure whether it was the mics or the response system that was actually at fault, the client didn't care and demanded the mics replaced.

 

I won't be surprised if I hear similar stories as more and more kit starts using the 2.4GHz spectrum.

[BigYinUK]

We've just bought a 2.4Ghz Shure GLXD system. Did 3 shows over the weekend with it, 2 were fine but in the bigger venue we got some dropping out. I changed channel group, rescanned and switched the mic back on and experienced no further problems. I think it was because the theatre's show intercom system uses 2.4Ghz.

 

Serves to illustrate the above point that 2.4ghz is not likely to be entirely "trouble free". My Line 6 Relay which I've had for 2 years now gives me the same type of problem very occasionally.

 

There's a few paragraph's in the Shure manual on "Working In Challenging Environments".

[nb705]

IIRC the Shure QLX-D is also a ch38 device. The GLX-D is the 2.4ghz version but is cheaper and (in my experience) considerably less reliable.

 

I'm led to believe the QLXD is very similar to the ULXD, but without the Dante outputs.

[darrenfry]

IIRC the Shure QLX-D is also a ch38 device. The GLX-D is the 2.4ghz version but is cheaper and (in my experience) considerably less reliable.

 

I'm led to believe the QLXD is very similar to the ULXD, but without the Dante outputs.

 

Indeed it seems you are correct. Just looked a bit more into some of the details and saw you could use the existing aerial distribution which I thought was a bit odd.... they actually run between 470MHz - 530MHz.

 

So, 2.4GHz aside (although it was interesting!) - Shure QLX or Sennheiser?

[carlskeats]

IIRC the Shure QLX-D is also a ch38 device. The GLX-D is the 2.4ghz version but is cheaper and (in my experience) considerably less reliable.

 

I'm led to believe the QLXD is very similar to the ULXD, but without the Dante outputs.

 

Indeed it seems you are correct. Just looked a bit more into some of the details and saw you could use the existing aerial distribution which I thought was a bit odd.... they actually run between 470MHz - 530MHz.

 

So, 2.4GHz aside (although it was interesting!) - Shure QLX or Sennheiser?

 

Depends on what you are mostly doing? how many channels do you use? do you want encription? Do you perfer Shure sounding mic capsules or Sennheiser?

[nb705]

Are you dealing with singers on IEMs? The added latency could be a deal breaker. Otherwise I'd go for the QLXD.

[darrenfry]

Are you dealing with singers on IEMs? The added latency could be a deal breaker. Otherwise I'd go for the QLXD.

 

 

Occasionally, yes. We are mainly doing conference work so a natural sound and GBF are high in priority. Do you have experience with that kind of latency in IEM applications? I know that in theory even a few milliseconds can cause problems with frequency response in IEM's with filtering between acoustic and conducted sound but is it a big problem in reality?

 

We have a test system coming in on Monday so it will be good to hear them back to back and see what the differences are. IEM test is on the list!